List an Allowed Whatbox Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: "Absolute paths and path escapes are rejected," which informs the agent about input validation behavior beyond the annotations. It does not describe response details, but the output schema covers that.

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 two succinct sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states a critical constraint. Both sentences carry necessary information with no filler, and the most important purpose 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 tool with three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain rootIndex, which is essential for directing the tool to the correct allowed root. The security constraint is helpful, but without understanding the root selection mechanism and the expected relative path format, the agent cannot reliably invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter semantics. It only hints that paths are relative (by rejecting absolute paths) but does not explain rootIndex (what a root index refers to, how to select among multiple roots) or limit. The agent is left to guess the meaning of rootIndex and the expected format of relativePath, making the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: "List a directory below an explicitly allowed Whatbox storage root." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling listing tools like whatbox_list_quarantine by specifying the allowed root scope and the security constraint, making it unambiguous.

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 implies appropriate usage: you use this tool to list directories within an explicitly allowed storage root, and it warns that absolute paths are rejected. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when dealing with quarantine). The guidance is more implied than explicit.

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