list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully delivers: it declares read-only, no side effects, auth, or rate limits. It also discloses response characteristics (`total_est_tokens`, row fields) enabling the agent to plan token usage. No contradictory annotations exist.

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 well-structured and every sentence adds value: function, filters, safety declaration, response details, semantic nuance, and tool differentiation. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response shape, the purpose of `total_est_tokens`, and provides usage context, making it easy for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the filter parameters and adds the key `project_id: null` clarification, but this is already present in the schema. It doesn't substantially elevate parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists file metadata with specific filters and pagination, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to `search` for content lookup and `project_map` for a denser dump.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to browse known structure' and names alternatives (`search`, `project_map`). Also clarifies the nuanced `project_id: null` vs omit behavior, which is crucial for correct usage.

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