list_source_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real precondition — no board or Trail needed — and implies an authorization filter via 'allowed', but says nothing about result size, truncation, or pagination despite a limit capped at 1000.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the precondition. Sized well for a simple listing tool, though it could have spent one of its words on the limit behavior.

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, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and preconditions adequately. It is incomplete on result volume/pagination semantics, which matter given the silent 1000-item cap.

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 'limit' parameter (default 300, max 1000) is not mentioned at all in the description. With no compensating text about result caps or how limit interacts with the listing, the description leaves the one parameter undocumented.

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 and resource ('List allowed source files') and scopes it to 'the configured workspace', which cleanly separates it from read_source_file and edit_source_file siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the purpose is 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?

'Does not require a board or Trail' implies a usage context (usable without the board/Trail prerequisites other tools need), which is helpful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_source_file or where the 'allowed' filtering comes from, so usage is only partially guided.

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