get_files_touched

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that files are tracked across sessions and that counts are included, but does not mention potential limitations (e.g., maximum results, ordering, or whether it covers all history or a limited window). For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first states the primary action and scope, the second adds key output details. There is no wasted text, and critical information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is listed (files read, written, edited) and what is shown (paths, session counts). However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects), any sorting, or whether results are deduplicated. For a basic listing, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics (unnecessary), so the score reflects the lack of need.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all files that have been read, written, or edited across Claude Code sessions'). It also notes the output includes file paths and session counts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activity_summary or get_recent_events which cover broader or different scopes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the tool lists files across sessions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools have different focuses (e.g., find_source_for_selection, get_selection_history), the usage context is implicitly clear but no direct comparison is offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.