project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about permissions, whether the project must be generated/open, how the 'root' override behaves, or result ordering — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's role.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape (e.g., file paths plus metadata) or pagination behavior tied to 'limit'. It conveys the core scope but leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented (glob, root override, limit, project_id). The description adds only the notion of an output-directory scope, which is marginal value over the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (generated files under the project output directory), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like project_generate, project_delete, or config tools. It does not explicitly contrast with closer siblings such as project_csv or project_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus project_csv, project_report, or project_get, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., must the project be open or generated first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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