list_project_files

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: hidden directories and symlinks are excluded, and results are bounded, though the bound itself is not specified.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the primary scope is front-loaded. Every clause contributes either asset scope or filtering/bounding 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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives core scope and two important filters, but it leaves out return shape, whether traversal is recursive, ordering, and clearer limit semantics. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent relying on the description alongside a partially documented schema.

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 50%, with projectPath and pattern documented in the schema. The description adds some meaning by naming scene, script, and resource categories, which maps to the type enum, and by implying bounded results, which relates to limit; however, it does not clarify pattern syntax, limit behavior, or default values.

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 states a clear discovery operation over specific project asset types: scenes, scripts, and resources. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as list_projects or get_project_overview, but the resource scope is specific enough to identify what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Discover scenes, scripts and resources,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives or conditions for choosing this over related listing/introspection tools. The exclusion of hidden directories and symlinks describes result scope rather than usage routing.

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