my-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (formatted list or indication of no support) which is valuable, but doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this operation has side effects. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, definition of roots, and return behavior. Each sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only one optional internal parameter, the description provides adequate context. It explains what roots are and what to expect in terms of output format, though it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or limitations.

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 mentions no parameters, which aligns with the single optional 'ctx' parameter that has 0% schema description coverage. Since the tool effectively has zero meaningful parameters for the user (ctx is an internal injection mechanism), the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 specific action ('Lists') and resource ('current MCP roots'), and distinguishes this from siblings by specifying it's about filesystem/URI boundaries exposed by the client. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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. While it explains what roots are, it doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool should be selected over other sibling tools or mention any prerequisites for usage.

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