list_project_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lists all files within an Xcode project' and does not mention return format, whether the listing is recursive, whether directories are included, or any error/permission behavior. This is minimal for a tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is not overly verbose, though it could add useful details (e.g., 'recursively') without losing conciseness. Still, its brevity is appropriate for a simple listing tool.

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 simplicity, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of paths) or whether it handles invalid project paths. For an agent to invoke it correctly, the purpose is clear, but the expected output and edge-case behavior are left unspecified.

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 (projectPath and fileType) clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter context, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') and the target ('all files within an Xcode project'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_directory by focusing on Xcode projects, though it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or mention recursion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_directory, find_files, or get_project_configuration. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate, so agents receive no decision-making support.

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