collect_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies an action that likely copies or relocates files, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires a saved project, or how it handles missing files. No side effects are described.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified—concision without substance. It front-loads the primary purpose but lacks structural breakdowns for parameters or usage. It could be expanded to 2-3 sentences without being verbose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous verb, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the source of files, whether the project is modified, the meaning of 'collect' (copy vs move), or the effect of the boolean parameters. Given the tool's operational nature, more detail is needed to avoid misuse.

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 coverage is only 33% (only outputPath has a description). The description implies the tool collects project files, so includeFonts and includeFootage clearly control whether those file types are included, but this is inferred, not explicit. The description adds minimal value over the schema's boolean fields with no context.

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+resource+target ('Collect project files to a folder') but 'collect' is ambiguous—does it mean copy, move, or reference? There's no differentiation from siblings like organize_project_items or import_footage, so it's clear but not distinctly positioned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention intended use cases (e.g., packaging, backup, portability) or prerequisites (e.g., project must be open). The sibling context suggests it's for gathering dependencies, but nothing is stated.

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