collect_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description is minimal ('Collect project files to a folder') and does not state whether this is a read-only operation, mutates the project, or requires specific permissions. It doesn't explain if files are copied or moved, if the target folder must exist, or what happens to existing files. For a tool that likely manipulates project state, this is a significant gap.

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 very short (5 words), which could be considered concise, but it lacks substance. It is front-loaded in a single sentence but does not earn its place because it communicates almost no helpful information beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than efficiently summarized, reducing its utility.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (some undocumented), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits essential context like input constraints (e.g., does outputPath need to be absolute?), side effects on the project, and return value. The tool's complexity is moderate (parameter count 3) but the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation.

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 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (outputPath has one), and the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. The two boolean parameters (includeFonts, includeFootage) are completely undocumented—the description does not hint at their purpose or effect. With low schema_description_coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess what each boolean does.

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 states the tool collects project files to a folder, which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate between collecting project files versus the many other file-related tools like import_folder, replace_footage, organize_project_items, or find_missing_footage. The verb 'collect' is somewhat vague—does it copy, move, export, or package files? There is no specificity about scope or behavior that distinguishes it from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to files (import_folder, replace_footage, organize_project_items), there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open), scope (e.g., all files or only selected), or when not to use it (e.g., use import_folder to bring in new files instead). This leaves the agent without enough context to decide correctly.

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