list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List files stored in a project', omitting details such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., invalid projectId), pagination, or whether file contents or only metadata are returned.

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 very concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without waste. However, it could include additional context without becoming overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter and return value. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough information to use the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the required 'projectId' parameter beyond the field name, missing crucial context like 'the unique identifier of the project whose files to list'.

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 'List files stored in a project' uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource ('files stored in a project'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_project_file' and other 'list_*' operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring project existence), when it is appropriate (e.g., to retrieve all files), and when other tools (e.g., 'get_project') might be more suitable.

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