list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists files but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how it handles permissions, whether it paginates results, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. The return format is mentioned but without details on structure or error handling.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The use of bullet-like formatting for Args and Returns enhances readability.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, performance limits) and output details beyond 'List of file paths.' For a listing tool with filtering options, more guidance on usage and results would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all four parameters: 'project' as the project name, 'pattern' as an optional glob pattern with an example, 'max_depth' as maximum directory depth, and 'extensions' as a list of file extensions without dots. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'List files in a project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_file (retrieves content) or list_projects_tool (lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from find_similar_code or find_text, which might also involve file operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be registered), nor does it compare with siblings like list_projects_tool (for listing projects) or find_text (for searching within files). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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