project_file_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states what the resource is. It does not mention that this is a read operation, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or any side effects. The description is purely nominal and provides no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded, containing zero fluff. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, yet as a standalone sentence it is efficient and directly states the core purpose.

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 description is too minimal for a tool with pagination parameters and a list output. It does not explain that it returns a paginated list, nor does it describe the output shape or any edge cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to detail return values, but the description still lacks essential context for an agent to know when and how to invoke it effectively.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (id, offset, pageSize). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Files attached to the project' clearly identifies the resource and scope (project files). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list', the tool name 'project_file_list' implies a list operation, and it differentiates from sibling tools like task_file_list and contact_file_list by specifying 'project'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The description is a bare noun phrase, providing no contextual usage direction.

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