list_allowed_roots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool reads configuration only, lists directories, does not execute commands, and describes the output shape ({ path, name }). It also explains how the output relates to the cwd parameter, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or permission requirements, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first defines the return payload, the second gives an explicit when-to-use directive, the third clarifies side-effect-free behavior, and the fourth explains the name-to-cwd mapping. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields, explaining the cwd implication, and clarifying the read-only nature. For a zero-parameter informational tool, nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds useful usage semantics about passing a project's 'name' as 'cwd' elsewhere, which goes beyond what an empty schema could convey. Baseline 4 for zero parameters 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('allowed-roots configuration') and enumerates exactly what is included: primary project, extra roots, globs, existing directories, and cross-root read status. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting it runs no commands and only reads configuration and lists directories.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use THIS tool whenever you need to find out whether — and with which cwd parameter — you can run a command in another project.' It also implicitly excludes command execution by stating 'It runs no commands.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools, relying on context from sibling names rather than explicit contrast.

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