List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest first and download links are signed and expire roughly 30 days after the call. Only a minor flaw: it attributes the expiry to 'the expires parameter', which does not exist in this tool's schema.

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 blocks, front-loaded with the resource and return fields, then operational caveats. The opening sentence largely restates what the second sentence lists (name, size, link), so there is minor redundancy but no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating fields (name, title, is-image, size, notes, tags, added date, download link). The only gap is the misleading reference to an 'expires' parameter and no note on result volume/pagination.

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 with 100% schema coverage ('The project's numeric id (list_projects).'), so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about project_id and instead references a nonexistent 'expires' parameter, which is mildly confusing rather than helpful.

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 ('Reads a Contractor Foreman project's Files tab') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from list_projects, list_project_notes and other list_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Implied usage is clear (fetch the files of one project, newest first) and it gives a useful operational cue to call again for fresh links. However, it never states when to prefer a sibling such as list_project_notes or how it relates to the Files tab's other access paths, so routing guidance is only inferred.

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