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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them by specifying alphabetical ordering and the relationship to form folder_id values, letting the agent skip client-side sorting and join the two lists. Pagination or empty-result behavior is not addressed, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 short sentences, no redundancy, with the primary statement (what is listed and in what order) front-loaded ahead of the cross-reference detail.

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 tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. Only minor gaps remain, such as what an empty workspace returns and whether results are paginated, both largely mitigated by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single workspace_id parameter already documents when it is required versus optional. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the workspace's folders) and its ordering, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_forms or list_my_workspaces, though it does anchor folders to form folder_id values, which clarifies the entity being listed.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that each form's folder_id points at one of these folders suggests it is used to resolve or enumerate folder ids. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for the case where you already have a folder id.

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