list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful nuance: the listing reflects edits made by humans in the web UI, not just server-written files. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the verb 'List' plus the non-mutating context implies a safe operation. The added context about human edits is valuable beyond what a simple tool description provides.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a valuable behavioral note in the second. Every word 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 description gives the essential behavior and even an extra data-source nuance, but with no output schema and no mention of return format (beyond 'size'), error conditions, or whether directories are included, some gaps remain. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention projectId at all. The only clue is the phrase 'in the project', which vaguely implies projectId identifies the project, but no actual guidance is given. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema field.

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 every file in the project with its size, which is a specific verb+resource action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or write_file, making its 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 implies usage for obtaining a full file listing with sizes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file for individual files or delete_file for removal. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, so guidance is only implied.

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