List folders in your media library. Returns folder structure with paths, display names, and item counts. Use this to understand how your media is organized.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentPath | No | Parent folder path to list children of (default: "/" for root-level folders) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return format ('folder structure with paths, display names, and item counts'), which is valuable given no output schema. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but annotations cover the safety profile.
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 concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb, and efficiently communicates purpose and return value.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema are fully complete. It explains what is returned and the use case, so no additional detail is necessary.
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 parameter parentPath, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about parameters, relying entirely on the schema.
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 'List folders in your media library' with a specific verb and resource, and adds return details about folder structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_media or create_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 provides a clear usage context with 'Use this to understand how your media is organized,' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It gives a clear purpose without naming sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: analysis jobs (submit, check, get results, download), folder management (create, delete, list, rename), media operations (list, move, search, set visibility), and account info (organization, profile). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `echosaw_<verb>_<noun>`, using clear verbs like analyze, check, create, delete, get, list, move, rename, search, and set. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 14 tools, the server covers a well-scoped platform for media analysis and library management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated or sparse, fitting comfortably within the ideal range.
The server covers the full analysis workflow, folder organization, media searching, and account retrieval. Minor gaps exist such as lack of media deletion or job cancellation, but core workflows are well supported and no critical dead ends are apparent.
