list_allowed_roots

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful scope: these roots are authorization boundaries covering both reads and process working directories, which tells the agent this is a permissions-discovery tool rather than an arbitrary path listing. It stops short of stating the return shape (paths? objects with read/exec flags?) or whether the set can change between calls.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause adds information (authorization, reads, working directories).

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool conceptually returns and why the concept matters. The one remaining gap is the concrete return format, which an agent must discover empirically.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('filesystem roots') with a qualifier that narrows scope to 'explicitly authorized for reads and process working directories.' This is clearly distinguishable from list_directory or read_file, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to discover which roots it may read or use as a working directory. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no note about when to prefer list_directory, and no mention of whether the result is static or per-session.

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