listToolFiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the files are virtual VFS stubs, the exact path shape for both server-level and tool-level binding, and the naming contract tying the filename stem to the callable name for executeTool. It also states the discovery scope limit (connected servers only) and the call syntax used downstream.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then workflow, then the invocation-syntax note; the ordering is good and no sentence is filler. The 'In code, call tools as Server.tool_name(param=value)' sentence drifts into executeTool's territory and is the one piece that could be trimmed or moved.

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?

Zero params, no output schema, and no annotations — so the description must supply everything, and it does: what is returned (path patterns per binding mode), how those paths map to callable names, and where this tool sits in the discovery sequence. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does useful adjacent work by explaining that output shape varies by binding mode, but that is return-value context rather than parameter meaning.

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 ('Lists the virtual .pyi stub files for connected CodeMode MCP servers') and immediately explains the two binding modes that determine what gets listed. This clearly separates it from readToolFile, getToolDocs, and executeTool, which all operate on files this tool enumerates.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow (listToolFiles -> readToolFile -> optional getToolDocs -> executeTool) plus a hard trigger: 'CALL THIS FIRST when the user names a server, tool, or capability not in your visible tool list.' It also supplies a negative rule — do not claim unavailability until this tool confirms it — which is exactly the when-not guidance agents need.

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