list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and scopes the behavior to 'indexed files,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about permissions, pagination, or what happens if the project doesn't exist or isn't indexed, beyond the basic return description.

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: one main sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repeated schema information. The structure is intuitive and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the required project name, the optional filter, and the basic return format. It could be more complete by noting potential error behavior or confirming that all files are returned when no filter is set, but the current description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by giving an example for 'project' ('my-project') and enumerating the allowed values for 'file_type' ('header', 'source', 'documentation', 'config'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 all indexed files') and the resource scope ('for a project'), with an optional filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) and search_docs (which searches document content) by focusing on enumerating indexed files.

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 on what the tool does (list indexed files for a project, optional type filter) but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or get_document. The usage is implied through the verb and resource, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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