list_project_files

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that files are 'optionally tied to a version,' which is useful context, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or error conditions. The description only says 'List,' which implies read-only, but this is not explicit given the lack of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, a helpful clarification sentence, and a simple Args section. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, so the description is not required to detail return values. It explains the purpose, the distinction from issue attachments, and the nature of the files. A minor gap is that it does not mention how to identify the project (e.g., from the 'list_projects' endpoint), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 schema has a single 'project_identifier' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description's Args section repeats 'project identifier' verbatim, adding no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify the expected format (e.g., numeric ID or slug) or how to obtain it, so the parameter semantics are minimally explained.

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 the tool's function: listing files under a project's Files tab. It further distinguishes itself from issue attachments by clarifying that these are project-level artifacts, which effectively differentiates it from the sibling 'attach_file_to_issue' tool.

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 sets clear context about what the tool covers (project files, not issue attachments) and gives an example of the kind of files (builds, installers, documents). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, but the clarification helps an agent select this tool over issue attachment related options.

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