list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (listing TS/JS files with line counts) and the optional filter, but does not mention any side effects, whether the listing is recursive, or if it respects ignore files. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Lists') and includes only useful information about output and optional filtering. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides an adequate but incomplete picture. It states the result type (files with line counts) but leaves uncertainty about whether the list is recursive, includes hidden files, or how paths are formatted. For a simple tool this may be acceptable, but more details would improve usability.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic context by relating 'ext' to 'filter by extension' and 'name' to 'the project', which aligns with the schema's own field descriptions, so it does not significantly exceed the schema baseline.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('TS/JS files of the project') with an additional detail ('with their line count'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_functions or list_variables by focusing on files rather than code elements.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the tool lists files and optionally filters by extension. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_file_content or search_source, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's required 'name' parameter.

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