Files List Allowed Roots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations and no useful details about output, permission implications, or scope of 'allowed roots.'

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. It is boilerplate that says nothing meaningful about the tool's function, so brevity does not earn credit.

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?

Although there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description omits the core semantic information: what 'allowed roots' are, why an agent would call this tool, and how the result should be interpreted. For a zero-argument tool, that is the main missing context.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 only restates the tool name and labels it a 'Delegated Apple domain tool'; it does not state a verb, action, or resource. There is no semantic content explaining that the tool lists allowed root paths, and no distinction from other files_ or apple_ siblings.

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 about when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or when to prefer an alternative. The phrase 'Delegated Apple domain tool' is not actionable usage direction.

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