List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the 'authorized project path' context, hinting at an access-control consideration, but reveals nothing about traversal behavior, error cases, or how max entries/depth limits surface.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the action and object with no filler. Every word earns its place; the 'authorized' qualifier is the only mildly extraneous addition.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, this description is minimal. It leaves unaddressed how pathPrefix relates to 'authorized project path', what the depth/entry limits imply about returned data, and how results are structured. An agent gets enough to attempt a call but not to call it correctly on the first try.

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 description names none of the 4 parameters (projectId, pathPrefix, maxDepth, maxEntries). It does not clarify what 'authorized project path' maps to in terms of pathPrefix or projectId, so the agent gets no help beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('files and directories beneath a project path'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like read_file (reads content) and search_text (searches content). The qualifier 'authorized' is slightly vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 purpose implies when to use it (browse a project's file tree), and the sibling list makes the alternative obvious. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the relationships to discover_projects or read_file, and no stated exclusions.

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