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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is additive context. It delivers that by disclosing the tree model (parentId=null means root) and the workspace-defaulting behavior when workspaceId is omitted. It doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or depth limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what is listed and its fields, then the tree semantics, then parameter guidance. Dense but each sentence contributes; the cross-reference to list_docs/get_doc is useful rather than filler, though it slightly interrupts the parameter flow.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the parent/child relationship, which is what an agent needs to consume the result. Remaining gaps are pagination/ordering and whether folder lists are capped, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 carries the full burden and does so: projectId is an optional project filter, workspaceId is optional with a stated fallback to the credential's workspace and a pointer to list_workspaces for discovery. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 and resource ('Lista las carpetas de documentos') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, projectId, parentId, position). It also positions itself against siblings by explaining that docs reference folders via folderId in list_docs/get_doc, so an agent can tell which tool returns what.

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?

Explains when each optional filter applies: projectId to scope to one project, workspaceId to pick the workspace, and it names list_workspaces as the way to enumerate workspaces. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use list_docs for documents themselves'), so it is clear context without full routing rules.

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