list_roots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful behavioral context: results depend on login state ('when logged in') and are limited to configured roots, plus the explicit trash exclusion. It does not overstate or contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, the first front-loads the core action and scope, the second clarifies a key exclusion. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered read-only tool, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, the auth-dependent extension, and an important exclusion, leaving no missing information an agent would need to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description is not required to explain parameters; it instead clarifies the scope of the resource being listed.

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 uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('Jottacloud path roots') and adds scope details ('configured... may access', 'discovered mounts when logged in'). It also distinguishes itself from trash listing, separating it from the sibling list_trash without needing to open the schema.

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 conveys when to use the tool: to discover accessible roots and mounts, with the caveat that trash is not included. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., list_trash) or give a direct when-not-to-use instruction, leaving some inference to the agent.

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