List allowed directories

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only operation ('returns') and adds context about the read/write permission scope. No side effects or hidden behaviors are expected for a tool that simply lists allowed directories, so the description sufficiently discloses what the tool does.

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 sentence plus a short imperative, using 13 words total. It is front-loaded with the core function and ends with a clear instruction. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it returns and when to call it. It does not describe the format of the returned directories, but that is a minor gap for this type of tool. The guidance is sufficient for a competent agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. It correctly avoids mentioning parameters that do not exist, and the tool's function is self-contained.

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 returns the directories ChatGPT is allowed to read from and write to, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('directories'). It distinguishes itself from sibling file-operation tools, and the phrase 'Call this first' indicates a unique role for the agent.

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 includes an explicit directive 'Call this first,' which tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is distinct from its siblings and its position as a first step is clearly implied. This provides adequate usage guidance for a simple discovery tool.

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