ocd_list_context_roots

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the behavioral burden. It warns that the returned path field is a filesystem path and should not be used as a tool argument, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose other aspects such as side effects, sorting, or error conditions, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured with a clear main sentence, followed by an important usage section with bullet examples, and a final note. It's a bit long but all content is actionable and not redundant.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the core purpose, usage of the returned value, and a critical caveat about path vs id. It's sufficient given the absence of an output schema, though it could mention the exact return structure more explicitly.

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 schema already describes cwd as the working directory starting point for config search, and the description reinforces this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the list of context roots, and specifies it searches configuration from the cwd. It distinguishes this as the root-listing operation, separate from sibling tools like get_contexts or get_context_tree.

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 instructs how to use the returned ids with the sibling tools get_context_tree, get_contexts, and mutate_context, providing examples of parameter formats. This gives clear workflow guidance and distinguishes when to use this tool vs the alternatives.

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