fast_list_allowed_directories

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'lists,' implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is safe (e.g., no side effects), what permissions are needed, or how the list is returned. For a tool with no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the minimal verb.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimum viable level of information. However, it omits details such as what 'allowed' means, the format of the returned list, and whether it is user-specific. These gaps reduce completeness for an agent seeking to invoke the tool 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 no parameters, and the description does not add any parameter-level semantics. Since schema coverage is 100% (trivially), the baseline score is 3, and there is no room for the description to add value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Lists the allowed directories' is clear about what the tool does: it returns a list of directories that are allowed. The verb 'lists' and resource 'allowed directories' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like fast_list_directory, which likely lists files. However, it does not explain what 'allowed' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fast_list_directory or fast_get_directory_tree. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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