list_allowed_roots

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that paths outside the returned roots are rejected, and clarifies that the response includes limits (file size, scan count) and config file path. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent of critical scope constraints, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., rate limits), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 succinct and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, immediately follows with a critical usage warning, then lists the return fields, and concludes with concrete usage examples. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—providing purpose, constraints, return info, or usage guidance—with no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role, usage constraints, and return contents, while the examples clarify edge cases. The agent has all necessary information to decide when and how to call this 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The description compensates by explaining the output structure (roots, extensions, limits, config path), which is useful for understanding the tool's effect. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the return payload, meriting a 4.

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's purpose: 조회 (retrieve/list) the folders the server can open and the associated limits. It identifies the specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates itself from scan_folder by specifying when to use each. The examples further clarify its distinct role as the starting point for all operations.

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 explicit usage guidance: it declares itself as '모든 작업의 출발점' (starting point for all operations), instructs users not to guess paths and to only use paths under roots, and gives concrete scenarios for when to use (e.g., when another tool rejects with PATH_OUTSIDE_ROOT) and when not to (when you already have roots and need a file list, use scan_folder). This fully addresses when and when-not, with a named alternative.

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