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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the ordering rule (by depth, then path, explicitly not pre-order) and the fact that each folder carries parentId and full path. This meaningfully supplements the structured annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the question it answers, states the output, and then gives ordering and field details. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and what fields are present. The only real gap is not explicitly tying the required 'id' parameter to the collection ID, which is otherwise inferable.

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 has a single required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description implies 'id' refers to the collection by saying 'this collection', but it never explicitly states that the parameter is the collection ID or describes its expected format/scoping. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves the parameter semantics implicit.

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 resource (folders within a collection) and the specific output ('Returns the folder tree'). It answers a concrete question ('how is this collection organised?') and distinguishes itself from siblings that deal with collections, files, or transfers by focusing on the hierarchical folder structure.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to see how a collection is organized and what folders exist. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the question-oriented framing makes the intended use obvious.

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