files

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or failure modes. It implicitly suggests a read-only listing but never states so, leaving the agent to guess about implications like whether it modifies state or requires special access.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core functionality directly. There is no redundant information, and the structure is optimally concise for a simple tool.

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 does not explain the output format or the meaning of 'roots' (e.g., in a LaTeX project hierarchy). It also omits any mention of the 'project' parameter, leaving gaps in the overall context needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'project' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain what 'project' refers to or how it affects the listing, leaving the agent without essential information.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('.tex files'), and adds a distinctive detail ('marking which are roots') that differentiates it from other tools like read, grep, or edit. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It merely states what it does, without contextual cues such as 'use this before compiling' or comparisons to other listing/reading tools.

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