include_paths

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 states the primary action (removing paths from the exclusion list) and its relationship to exclude_paths, but does not disclose potential side effects, persistence, or error handling for patterns not in the list. It meets the baseline but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the relationship to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and relationship to exclude_paths. It is concise and complete enough for its complexity, though it could mention persistence or error behavior.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'patterns' parameter as 'Glob patterns to remove from exclusion list', providing 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'specified patterns' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states 'Remove paths from the exclusion list' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool exclude_paths by noting it 'Reverses the effect of exclude_paths'. This makes 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?

The description explicitly names the alternative tool (exclude_paths) and states this tool reverses its effect, providing clear guidance on when to use it. This qualifies as an explicit alternative reference.

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