ds_list_allowed_directories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape's content ('API names that can be requested to each directory'), which is genuinely useful context, but it omits any statement about read-only semantics, side effects, permissions required, or the fact that access is scoped by server policy.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ('API names that can be requested to each directory') but still earns its place by describing output content.

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 simple zero-arg discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape adequately, but it should at minimum clarify the read-only nature and how it relates to the other directory-listing siblings. No output schema exists, so explaining what comes back is valuable and partly done.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this ('No inputs'), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a list of directories (collections)') and adds scope ('that this server is allowed to access'), which distinguishes it from a generic directory listing. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like ds_list_directory, ds_list_directory_details, or ds_directory_tree, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling listing tools. An agent cannot tell from this text whether this is a discovery/bootstrap call or an alternative to ds_list_directory.

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