list_project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation without mentioning pagination (cursor/limit), sorting, error handling, or response format. The schema hints at pagination, but the description fails to address this explicitly.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward listing tool.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values and behavioral context like pagination. It is minimally complete for a simple list function.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'optionally filtered by extension' which reinforces the 'extensions' parameter, but does not provide new insights beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 resource 'project files', clearly indicating the tool's function. It mentions optional filtering by extension, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'read_file' (which reads a specific file).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'read_file'. While the context of siblings implies differentiation, there is no direct advice on when to choose this tool over others.

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