emacs_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, and it only states the core action. Key behaviors — whether listing is recursive or top-level only, how results are ordered, path format, and behavior when no project is active or the path is invalid — are left unstated.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with no filler; the core verb and resource are front-loaded. 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?

Despite the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, full schema coverage), there is no output schema and no annotations, so an agent cannot learn the return format, recursivity, or error behavior. The description alone is thin for a tool in a large sibling family with adjacent search/info tools.

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%: both `path` and `limit` are already well-described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema — it echoes the path semantics ('current or specified project') and says nothing about `limit`.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in the current or specified project'), making the core function immediately clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like emacs_project_list (lists projects) and emacs_project_search (searches), though it never explicitly names a sibling to rule out.

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 phrase 'current or specified project' implies the usage context: rely on the active project or pass an explicit root. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over emacs_project_search or emacs_file_info, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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