list_workspace_folders

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read operation that lists 'currently active' folders. No claims of side effects are made, and the description is consistent with a safe, idempotent query. It could be slightly more explicit about being read-only, but the purpose is clear.

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 only two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool does and why to use it. There is no missing information that would hinder an AI agent from selecting or invoking it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but that's acceptable since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('workspace folders'), and a distinguishing attribute ('currently active'). It also explains the purpose ('see which roots the language server is indexing'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_workspace_folder or remove_workspace_folder.

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 tells when to use this tool ('to see which roots the language server is indexing'). While it doesn't mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies that this is for inspection, not modification. A slight bonus for clear usage context.

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