許可フォルダの一覧

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope that only server-authorized directories are returned, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as ordering, errors, or permission-related failure modes. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is one compact Japanese sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and action clearly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly connect the returned directory list to the sibling file-operation tools, but this is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it returns the list of folders the server is permitted to read and write. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_directory, read_file, and write_file, which operate on directory contents or files rather than on the authorization boundary.

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 intended use—discovering which directories are accessible before using file tools—is implied by the description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct routing guidance to sibling tools is provided.

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