find_project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists file categories and does not mention whether the search is recursive, whether paths are absolute or relative, how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like.

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 one clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes concise examples of file types. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and edge cases. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., file names, full paths) or behavior like recursion, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It only says 'in a directory', which barely adds meaning to the parameter name 'directory'. It does not explain the expected format (e.g., absolute/relative path), whether the directory must exist, or how it is used.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'KiCad project files', and the scope 'in a directory'. It further specifies file types ('schematics, boards, and project files'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like tracks or symbols.

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 by stating it lists project files in a directory, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or comparison to sibling tools.

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