Show a project's files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive context beyond that — the meaning of contentVersion and the precise stale-write rule (a write is refused only when its own file changed after that version). It does not mention size limits or truncation behavior for large trees, so it is not fully 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core resource (file tree) front-loaded and the actionable version-handoff detail immediately after. The parenthetical about write refusal is dense but directly load-bearing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of return values — it names the key fields (rootFile, engine, contentVersion) and the {branch, head} echo is covered by the schema. It never sketches the tree's shape or ordering, which would help an agent parse a large result, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 (branch, project) are documented there in detail, including defaults and token-scoping behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or defaults of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; its value is concentrated on output semantics rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — the file tree of a project branch — and immediately names the additional payload fields (rootFile, engine, contentVersion). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects (which lists projects) and read_file (which reads one file), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear proactive guidance: "Call it before working in a project you have not read yet," and explains that contentVersion should be forwarded as base_version to edit_file, write_file, or batch_write. It does not explicitly name an alternative for the already-known-project case (e.g. going straight to read_file), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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