set_root_path

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

The description implies a mutation ('add') but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicates. With no annotations provided, the tool's safety profile and behavioral nuances are inadequately communicated.

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 the minimal viable length of two sentences, with the parameter note separated. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter detail could arguably be integrated into the schema's description field.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description should cover edge cases like duplicate entries or invalid paths. The current text is overly simple for a tool that modifies system state, leaving many queries unanswered.

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 documentation for the parameter 'root_path' adds critical constraints ('absolute path', 'existing directory') beyond the schema's type-only definition. This significantly aids the AI in correctly invoking the tool, though format and validation details are omitted.

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 'Add a directory to the allowed whitelist' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_allowed_roots' (read-only) and general file operations, making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'dir_ops' for adding directories. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the directory must exist) or exclusive contexts, leaving the AI agent to infer usage patterns.

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