list_roots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact root values and their nature (OneDrive personal vs. shared folder), and provides usage context. It doesn't mention return format or side effects, but for a read-only listing of roots, the provided context is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential information plus a useful example. 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, the exact valid values, and how to use them. It is complete for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so by the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed since the schema is empty.

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 tool lists available roots ('Lista las raices disponibles'), names the two specific roots ('onedrive' and 'aisquad'), and explains their meaning. It distinguishes itself from sibling file operations by defining these as navigation prefixes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the listed prefixes for navigation with an example ('onedrive/PROYECTOS BIT'), signaling that this tool is the entry point for discovering valid top-level paths. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implies when this should be used versus other file operations.

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