Get Roots List Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the server does not access files and that the tool demonstrates the roots protocol capability. It does not describe the output shape, but for a simple listing tool with full annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential function and adds one clarifying clause. Every word earns its place 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?

For a parameterless, safe, idempotent read-only tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains what the tool does aligning with the protocol and adds the no-file-access caveat. A slightly richer note about expected roots being client-defined might help, but this is a minor gap.

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 Scott and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description still makes clear this is a read-only listing operation, which is sufficient given no inputs are required.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('current MCP roots provided by the client'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from resource-related siblings by explicitly mentioning MCP roots and noting the server does not access files.

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 clear context: this tool is for listing client-provided MCP roots accruate to the roots protocol. It also adds a useful exclusion by noting the server doesn't access files, implying this is not for file access tasks. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but no ambiguity remains for this parameterless tool.

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