typst_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing what the listing contains (Yjs text files plus binary asset blobs) even though no output schema exists. However it says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether directories are included, or authentication requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope ('inside a project') and the content description both land before the sentence ends.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. Minor gaps remain around authentication and result shape, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents projectId at 100% coverage ('The Typst project ID'). The description reinforces the project scoping but adds no format, sourcing, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 all files ... inside a project') and even enumerates the resource subtypes ('multiplayer Yjs text files and binary asset blobs'). It is clearly distinguishable from typst_list_projects and typst_read_file, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as contrasts.

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 never says when to call this instead of typst_list_projects or typst_get_project, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a projectId obtained elsewhere. Usage must be inferred entirely from the object ('inside a project').

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