list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: both tracked and untracked files are returned, and build/dependency and secret-like paths are filtered out. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior when limit is hit, or permissions on the open repository.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the inclusion scope front-loaded before the exclusion caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool the description covers what is enumerated and what is filtered, but with no output schema and an undocumented limit parameter, the agent still lacks the return shape and size-control semantics needed to call it confidently.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell whether limit caps the number of files returned, per page or total, and what the default is.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List ... text-project files in the open repository") plus the inclusion scope (tracked and untracked). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_project_code or read_project_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 exclusion note (dependency/build folders, secret-like files) implies when the tool is the right one for a broad file inventory, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_project_code or list_branches. Usage must be inferred from the scope statement.

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