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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the returned data surface (counts, sharing exclusions, covers, URLs, passcodes, management URLs), which helps an agent judge output usefulness; pagination/limits are not mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence carries the routing instruction. The attribute enumeration is long but each item adds informational value rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates well by describing what the listing returns and how it relates to list_proposals. Minor gaps around pagination or ordering behavior remain.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document or obscure.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (this workspace's folders) and enumerates the returned data surface (item counts, sharing exclusions, URLs, passcodes, management URLs). It also names the sibling list_proposals and the distinction between them, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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 routes to list_proposals with a folder_id for folder contents, or null for unfiled pages, which clarifies when this listing is the right choice. No explicit 'when not to use list_folders' statement, but the alternative is well identified.

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