validate_directories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the dependency on 'restrictWorkingDirectory' and the two modes, but does not specify what happens on validation failure (e.g., error returns), limiting transparency.

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 and well-structured with sections and an example, but the JSON block is relatively large. Every sentence adds useful information, though it could slightly be trimmed.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality and usage. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites beyond 'restrictWorkingDirectory'. Adequate but not fully complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the shell parameter's role and providing a usage example, going beyond what the schema provides.

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 function ('Check if directories are within allowed paths') with specific context (only available when restrictWorkingDirectory is enabled). It distinguishes two validation modes (global and shell-specific), providing a clear resource and verb.

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 explains when to use the tool (for directory validation) and provides explicit guidance for shell-specific validation via a JSON example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about exclusive usage.

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