list_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 implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or the fact that only a single project's files are returned — all relevant for a list endpoint. An output schema exists, but behavioral traits are still undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the resource named up front. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally balanced.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, for a list tool with an undocumented required parameter and no behavioral notes, the description leaves gaps an agent must fill by trial or inference.

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 0% and the single required parameter project_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description merely implies project scoping through the word プロジェクト but adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond that.

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 (返す = returns) and resource (Files モジュール一覧), and names the module explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart from list_wiki_pages or list_issues. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like add_project_file or download_attachment.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_project or add_project_file, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist, permissions needed). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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