List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral detail that paths are presented as opaque @p_<id> references. This provides beyond-annotation context without contradicting it.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation and presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main point. However, it omits behavior of max_depth and recursive, which are not explained anywhere, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of how to use these parameters.

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 coverage is only 33% (path has description). The description mentions @p_<id> references which relates to the path parameter but adds nothing for max_depth or recursive. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 lists redacted files/directories and introduces the key behavior of opaque @p_<id> path references. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like redctx_read or redctx_tree.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The mention of opaque path references hints at a use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like redctx_tree or redctx_stat.

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