Codebase Paths List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does communicate a meaningful behavioral trait: the set of directories that are actually indexed (modules, web/modules, sites/*/modules, core), which is a common source of false confidence in search coverage. It is a read-only, zero-param introspection tool, so there is little else to disclose.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what is returned, the second states why to call it. Front-loaded and free of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description covers purpose, usage intent, and the scan-location semantics that determine how the result should be interpreted. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the defined baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show the configured docroot and the module directories indexed'), which is concrete and distinguishable from search/index siblings like codebase_search or codebase_module_list. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast against, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states a clear condition for use: verify which locations the codebase tools scan 'before relying on search results.' That is actionable context. It does not name an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, keeping it just below the top band.

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