list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool operates on a REMOTE Typleaf project rather than local files, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose details like recursion behavior, sorting, or response shape, so it offers only modest value beyond the annotation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and the optional filter immediately, keeping the top-level description concise while the schema carries the detailed parameter semantics.

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 read-only annotation, only two parameters, and a richly documented schema, the definition is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The project_id guidance covers the main failure mode (confusing a remote Typleaf project with a local path), and the extension filter is clearly explained. An output schema would be nice but is not required for correct invocation here.

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%, and both parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, especially project_id with its pattern, example, and warnings. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 verb ('List'), the resource ('files in a Typleaf project'), and the optional filter ('by extension'), so an agent immediately knows the tool's function. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_files or list_projects to disambiguate, but the scope is specific enough that the purpose is not ambiguous.

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 project_id parameter description provides explicit usage guidance: these tools should only be called for remote Typleaf projects, never for general local file I/O, and local copies should be handled with standard read/grep tools. It also instructs the agent to call list_projects first when unsure, which directly supports correct tool selection.

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