list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond the bare 'list project files' name by disclosing that it scans specific Pascal, form, and project extensions and that it parses .dproj files for units, search paths, and build configuration. It does not discuss edge cases or side effects, but 'List' and the scanning detail provide solid transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two precise sentences detailing file categories and dproj parsing. The Args section is minimal and useful. There is no redundant text.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key inputs and behavioral scope. It does not discuss recursion, missing-directory behavior, or return structure, but the output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this a minor gap.

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?

The schema only names 'Project Dir', while the description adds that it is a path to the project directory on disk. For a single, obvious parameter this is sufficient semantic grounding even though deeper details like relative vs. absolute paths are omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('source files in a Delphi/Lazarus project directory'), then enumerates exactly which file types are included. This differentiates it from siblings like parse_form, compile_pascal, and run_pascal, even though those alternatives are not named.

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 intended use is implied: call this to discover project files before compiling or running. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as parse_form or compile_pascal, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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