get_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return type ('List of file metadata dicts') and error behavior ('error dict when project is omitted'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or pagination, and it incorrectly states project is required when the schema allows null.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each line adds value. The 'required' note is slightly redundant given the schema, but overall it is concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and error case. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by describing the return as metadata dicts, though it does not detail the dict structure or distinguish from get_file_content.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the project parameter meaning and suggests using list_indexed_projects() to discover valid values. Yet it claims the parameter is required, contradicting the schema's default null and non-required status, which undermines the value.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'files that have been indexed for a project', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_content (content retrieval) and search_codebase (search). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Description points to list_indexed_projects() for discovering project names, providing clear context and a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_codebase or get_file_content.

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