List the project's files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses size semantics (UTF-8 bytes when sizeExact, else a cheap lower bound), deterministic ordering, duplicate-path conflict flags, binary file pointer descriptors with exact sizeBytes, and the read-only nature of the operation. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Three sentences pack in the core action, output details, binary-file handling, and read-only context without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value. The use of em-dashes and semicolons keeps related ideas together without bloating the 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive: paths, sizes, duplicate flags, and binary pointers. It also explains how to proceed with binary files (pass to read_file) and clarifies the mutation boundary (propose_edit). Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead focuses on output semantics. It mentions 'sizeExact' as a field, not a parameter, which is appropriate. No parameter-related gap exists.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the live (non-deleted) files of the shared project.' It then details exactly what is returned (path, size, deterministic order, duplicate-path flags) and distinguishes itself from read_file by explaining how binary file pointers are consumed by that sibling. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: it is a read-only listing operation, and edits are explicitly routed to propose_edit. It also tells the agent to pass binary file paths to read_file for the pointer. It does not explicitly compare against project_context or galley_ping, but the read-only/edit exclusion and the read_file handoff give enough practical guidance.

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