list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that excluded directories and patterns are already filtered out, and that the list is exactly what read_code can open. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list files' statement.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds useful detail (exclusion behavior, parameter guidance) without fluff. The structured 'Args' block is clean and easy to parse.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral filtering, parameter sourcing, and relationship to sibling tools. No critical gaps remain.

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 provides no description (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'project' is a project name from list_projects, with an example. This gives the agent a clear origin and expected value format.

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 'Lists the readable source files inside one project' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying the list matches exactly what read_code is allowed to open, making its role clear.

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 provides clear context by explaining that the output corresponds to read_code's allowed files, implying when to use it (e.g., before read_code). It also references list_projects as the source of valid project names. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to search_code.

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