list_files

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

Explicitly states the tool is 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits,' which fully compensates for the lack of annotations. Mentions the response includes `total_est_tokens` for budgeting. Could add note about performance or pagination limits, but overall transparent.

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 concise with no wasted words, covering all needed information in a compact paragraph. The sentence about read-only is a fragment but still clear. Could benefit from breaking into two sentences for readability.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, safety, return info, and usage guidance. It lacks explanation of combining filters or default pagination, but those are partly in the schema. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the special `project_id: null` semantics and the `untagged` parameter's purpose for bulk-tagging workflows, beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List file metadata with optional filters and pagination,' specifying the action, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming 'search' and 'project_map' for alternative use cases.

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 ('Use to browse known structure') and alternatives ('for keyword/content lookup use `search`; for a denser whole-vault dump use `project_map`'). Also explains special behavior for `project_id: null` to target Knowledge Base files.

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