List files in the open Overleaf project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context that the tool uses cached data from open_project and makes no network calls, indicating potential staleness and a prerequisite that open_project must have been called. It also details the return entity structure, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant details about cost, data source, and return format, with no wasteful wording.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return structure (flat list, path, id, kind) and providing an example path. It also conveys the cheap/no-network nature, which is important for an agent's decision-making. The tool is simple with optional parameters, and the description is complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (kind and path_contains) fully described including enum values and substring filter behavior. The description does not add significant parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the file tree of the currently open project as a flat list of project-relative paths. It specifies the resource (files) and the verb (returns/list), and is distinct from sibling tools like read_file (reads content) or list_projects (lists projects).

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 provides clear context by noting the tool is cheap and uses cached data from open_project, implying it is suitable for quick file tree lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, lacking explicit exclusionary guidance.

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