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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere; the description still adds real behavior beyond that: trashed folders are excluded, nesting must be reconstructed from parentUid, and the workspace root is not a folder. It does not mention ordering or completeness of the listing, which would round this out to a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, nesting reconstruction, workflow hand-off, and the root edge case. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and annotations carry the read-only profile. What remains — how to present results, how to remap the uid into move_project/duplicate_project, and the root caveat — is fully covered for a one-parameter listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single workspaceUid parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the downstream semantics of the returned uid (toFolderUid) and the null/omitted case for root, meaning that would otherwise be undocumented at the call site.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("List every non-trashed folder in a workspace") with a scoping qualifier ("where the user can move or copy projects") that no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from list_projects and list_workspaces without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the consumption path: present names/paths to the user, then pass the chosen uid as toFolderUid to move_project or duplicate_project. It even handles the negative case — omit toFolderUid when the workspace root is selected — so the agent knows exactly what to do with each outcome.

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