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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by saying it returns a bounded page and live media counts but not folder contents. It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits, but for this read-only listing tool the added scope detail is substantial.

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 a single efficient sentence. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated without waste. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only two-parameter listing tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and exclusion. It is slightly incomplete because pagination behavior and parameter semantics are not explained, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for cursor and pageSize having no documented semantics. It only hints at pagination with 'bounded page' and says nothing about cursor format, page-size limits, or default behavior. This is insufficient for the undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists folders. It also states the scope (bounded page), the data returned (live media counts), the tenant context (connected Wisprs tenant), and an explicit exclusion (without returning folder contents). This distinguishes it from content-returning or folder-mutating siblings such as search_library, create_folder, and delete_folder.

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 implies the tool is for folder metadata and counts rather than folder contents, which is useful selection context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as search_library or how to handle cross-tool workflows. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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