get_project_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses recursion, parsing of include/use statements, validation against security.allowed_paths, and the structured return format. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'List' and 'map' imply no mutation.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by concise elaboration. The Args/Returns structure is clear and every sentence adds value—recursion, parsing, validation, and return details. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, security context, return structure, and behavioral details. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema has one parameter (project_dir) with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining it as the root directory of the OpenSCAD project and mentioning security validation. It also documents ctx, which is absent from the schema, adding useful context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all OpenSCAD files in a project directory and map their dependencies.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like render_single or export_model, which focus on rendering or model management.

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 gives clear context: it recursively finds .scad files and parses include/use statements, indicating use cases like project analysis or dependency mapping. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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