List allowed repositories

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context that it lists 'configured allowed roots' and 'likely project directories', which hints at a configuration source and a heuristic ('likely'). It does not contradict the annotations and enriches beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single, compact sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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, one optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., absolute paths, relative paths) or clarify what 'likely project directories' means, which could be useful but is not essential for basic invocation.

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 single parameter `maxDepth` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load, and the description does not enhance understanding of that parameter beyond the default/min/max values.

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 identifies the tool's action ('List') and resource ('configured allowed roots and likely project directories'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_project_files, which lists files within projects, by focusing on the allowed roots themselves. The wording is specific and not a tautology.

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 that this tool is used to enumerate allowed root directories, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like list_project_files or read_memory_index. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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