wetrack_list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is a listing plus storage stats, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/side-effect-free, nor mention auth or pagination behavior. The 'Get/List' verb implies safety, but the disclosure is otherwise thin.

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 two short components: a front-loaded first sentence stating action and scope, followed by a compact Args block with no redundant prose. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 a simple 3-parameter schema and an output schema that covers return shape, the description gives the caller enough to invoke the tool correctly. It falls short only in not addressing read/side-effect guarantees or routing among sibling file/ticket tools.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description compensates fully: it explains that project_id is a UUID, folder_id filters to a folder UUID with 'root'/omit for root level, and search filters by name. This adds meaning the schema alone would not provide.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all files, folders, and ticket attachments for a project') and adds a distinguishing outcome ('with storage stats'). This clearly separates it from file-mutation siblings like wetrack_add_project_file and wetrack_delete_project_file.

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 tool's purpose makes its intended use case clear, and the Args notes explain how to scope with folder_id and search. However, it never tells an agent when to prefer this over related tools such as wetrack_get_ticket_attachments or wetrack_get_project_stats, nor does it state any exclusions.

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