pm_list_project_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the HTTP method and path. It does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid project_id), whether results are paginated, or any ordering or filtering capabilities.

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 very concise, consisting of a single line. However, it lacks structure and informative content for an agent. While brevity is generally positive, this is minimalistic to the point of omitting necessary context for proper tool selection and use.

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 existence of an output schema and sibling tools with similar names (e.g., pm_download_project_file, pm_delete_project_file), the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it lists all files or paginated, what file metadata is returned, and any permissions required. The current description is incomplete for a non-trivial use case.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not add any meaning. Parameters like 'x_user_id' have unclear purpose; the description does not explain their role or format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'GET /projects/{project_id}/files' clearly indicates listing files for a project using an HTTP GET request. It specifies the verb (list) and resource (files under a project). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pm_download_project_file or pm_upload_project_file, but the context of 'list' vs 'download'/'upload' is implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context about project existence or access rights, and no information on when not to use it. It is a bare endpoint specification.

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