list_allowed_directories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and usage context but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a cached result, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what format the returned list takes. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The description is mostly complete but could benefit from return value details.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on the tool's purpose and usage context, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 with specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of root directories that this server is allowed to access'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_directory' by focusing on allowed/accessible directories rather than directory contents.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to understand which directories are available before trying to access files.' This provides clear guidance that this should be used as a preliminary check before file operations, differentiating it from siblings that perform actual file operations.

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