overleaf_list_files

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that files and folders are listed, but provides no information about return format, pagination, depth, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not include bullet points, headings, or additional details. While not verbose, it is too brief to be fully informative.

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?

With 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the output (e.g., file paths, IDs, metadata), any limits on file count, or potential errors. The agent would have to guess about return behavior.

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 coverage is 100% (projectId has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'The ID of the Overleaf project.'

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 'Lists' and the resource 'all files and folders in an Overleaf project'. It distinguishes from siblings like overleaf_read_file (single file) and overleaf_create_doc (creation), though it does not specify whether the listing is recursive.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like overleaf_read_file or overleaf_compile_and_download.

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