List project files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and deterministic. The description adds valuable behavioral context: credential files/directories are always excluded, and paths are relative to the selected project. It also explains the effect of include_all. No contradictions with annotations; the additional details go beyond what the annotations provide, though they don't cover all edge cases (e.g., whether it follows symlinks).

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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the include_all behavior is explained in a compact sentence. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 listing tool with a clear purpose, the description is complete. It covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and constraints (credential exclusion, relative paths). The presence of an output schema likely details the return format, so the description doesn't need to. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: it explains include_all in detail ('includes dependencies, runtime state, Git internals, and caches') and clarifies that credential files are always excluded. For 'project', it notes 'Paths are relative to the selected project,' which gives context. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though it could be more explicit about the project parameter's format (e.g., path vs. name).

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 purpose: 'List readable files in a project under the configured structured root.' This specific verb ('list') and resource ('files') with the context of 'project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads content) and write_file (which writes). The mention of 'readable files' and exclusion of credentials further sharpens the 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 usage: for enumerating files in a project with an option to include all (dependencies, caches, etc.). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context signals make it clear it's for listing, not reading or modifying. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, but the 'under the configured structured root' constraint adds some usage context.

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