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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by naming the output fields, stating the optional document type filter, and explicitly excluding tree structure and contents. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it does not discuss pagination or ordering.

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 two tightly written sentences, with the core purpose and output shape front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently states exclusions and routes to the relevant sibling tool. Every phrase earns its place without fluff.

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 read-only list endpoint with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: what it lists, what fields are returned, the optional filter, and what it intentionally omits. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter semantics, leaving no critical gap.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a detailed description of what each type represents and what omitting it does. The tool description merely paraphrases "optionally one document type" without adding new semantic information. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb "List" with resource "folders in the world" and states the returned fields (id, name, type, parent). It explicitly distinguishes itself from folder-get by noting it does not return a tree or contents. This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling folder tools.

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 clearly states when to use this tool versus folder-get: for a flat folder listing, not subfolders or contents. It also explains the optional type filter, directing agents toward the right invocation. No competing list tool is named, but the primary routing decision is fully covered.

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