list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context about the tool returning project-relative paths and implying safety, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, return format, or behavior with directories/hidden files. The 'safe' hint is useful but insufficient for full 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetitive content.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is too sparse to give a complete picture. It lacks any mention of return values, recursion behavior, or how to specify file extensions, making it insufficient for reliable invocation without further schema introspection.

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 only 20% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description's mention of 'project-relative paths' sheds some light on the path parameter, but it does not clarify recursive, extensions, maxResults, or how projectPath interacts. The description does not compensate enough for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('project files'). The qualifier 'safe, project-relative paths' adds a distinguishing feature that helps differentiate it from sibling listing tools like list_resources or list_scenes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_file or list_resources. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationship to other tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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