overleaf_list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism ('by downloading and inspecting the project ZIP') and the performance cost ('slower than single-file download'), giving the agent useful expectations about side effects and overhead beyond the schema.

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 filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the performance caveat is provided as a useful secondary note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, clear list semantics, and no output schema. The description covers the scope, contents of the result (nested files and sizes), and the performance tradeoff. It doesn't detail the exact return structure, but for a list operation this is a minor gap given the otherwise clear behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter already has a clear description and pattern. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every project file, including nested files and sizes.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like overleaf_download_file by emphasizing the complete, nested inventory aspect.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a complete, path-accurate inventory is needed.' It also provides a tradeoff against the obvious alternative, noting it is 'slower than single-file download,' which effectively tells the agent when not to choose this tool.

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