Get CMake input files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the kinds of files returned (glob-dependent lists, configure_file inputs), which adds value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, volume, or how defaults affect results.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with examples. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly long.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned content categories. It could be stronger by noting that CMake-shipped modules are excluded by default, which would clarify a potentially confusing example.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The mention of 'included .cmake modules' loosely maps to includeCMakeModules and 'glob-dependent file lists' hints at external files, but no additional syntax or default behavior is explained beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (files CMake read during configuration), with concrete examples like CMakeLists.txt, .cmake modules, and configure_file inputs. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_cache_variables or get_compile_commands, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting tool.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_compile_commands or get_cache_variables, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a configured build directory. Usage is only inferable from the tool's purpose.

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