List project files

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'allowed root' constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as recursion depth limits (maxDepth), result truncation (maxFiles), or hidden file handling (includeHidden). Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and an 'allowed root' constraint, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not specify the output format, explain parameter semantics, or mention limit behaviors. The strong annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.

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 only 25% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description does not explain maxDepth, maxFiles, or includeHidden, and it does not compensate for the low coverage. While parameter names hint at their purpose, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List files under a project directory inside an allowed root.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file (which reads content) and search_in_project (which searches), and the 'allowed root' qualifier adds important scope.

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 implies the tool is used for listing files in a project, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over search_in_project or read_file.

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