List a project's files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no permission requirements, and no note on whether the listing is scoped to a module or returns everything.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it arguably under-specifies rather than being a model of structured communication.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present. What is missing is list-specific behavior (pagination, result count, ordering) that an agent would want before invoking it repeatedly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is documented as 'Project id or identifier.' The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier format or accepted values, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (files attached to a project's Files module), which is clearer than a bare 'list files'. However it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like files_list_documents, files_download, or files_get_attachment, so the agent must still infer which listing tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no alternative tool is named despite several file-related siblings. The agent gets no help routing between files_list_project_files, files_list_documents, and files_get_attachment.

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