list_roots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about what the tool reports (folders, storage, formats, limits) and its role as a prerequisite. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the kind of information returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. It does not contradict 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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the crucial usage instruction. Every sentence serves a distinct function: stating what the tool does and when to call it. No redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool reports and that it should be called first. The output schema likely covers the detailed structure, so the description doesn't need to enumerate fields. No missing information 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details. No additional semantic explanation is 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?

The description states a specific action ('확인합니다' = check) and a clear resource (folders, storage locations, supported formats, and limits readable by this server). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools (scan, read, search, etc.) by being a discovery/preflight call, and it explicitly frames itself as a prerequisite to those operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: '다른 도구를 부르기 전에 먼저 호출하세요' (call this first before calling other tools). This gives unambiguous usage guidance and positions it as a mandatory first step, effectively differentiating it from all sibling tools that perform actual operations.

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