List project files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and filter options, but does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, recursion, case sensitivity, or permission implications. The schema hints at limit/offset but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 has six parameters and a clear schema, but no output schema. The description does not explain return values or edge cases like the 'project' parameter inference. For a simple list tool it is adequate, but it would benefit from mentioning output format or how glob matching works. It is neither incomplete nor exceptionally complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'kind' with the enum values and 'optional glob' (pattern), but this mostly duplicates the schema. It adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists project files and enumerates specific kinds (scenes, scripts, resources, images, audio, models), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'scene_tree', so it misses the full discriminator credit.

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?

'Use to orient in an unfamiliar project' provides a clear use case, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative. This is clear context without exclusions, so it fits the 4-level.

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