validate_directories

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

The description adds context about modes and the restrictWorkingDirectory condition, but it does not disclose the tool's output format or behavior on invalid directories. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden, and it partially meets it.

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 concise, uses markdown headers and a code block for clarity, and front-loads the main purpose. It is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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?

The description covers input semantics well and explains modes, but it lacks information about the output (e.g., returns boolean or error), which is important for a validation tool with no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the shell parameter's purpose and providing an example JSON, clarifying usage beyond the schema's enum description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if directories are within allowed paths, with a specific availability condition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_command and get_config by focusing on validation.

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 describes two validation modes (global and shell-specific) and how to use the shell parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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