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

With no annotations at all, the description still discloses the key behavioral fact: it is read-only and folders cannot be created or modified here (management happens on the web). It omits auth requirements and whether all folders or only some subset are returned, 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action, the returned shape, and the consumer tool, then closes with the read-only constraint. No redundant wording.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape explanation — and it does, including root detection via null parentId. For a parameterless read tool this covers everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics on the result side instead, defining id/name/parentId and explaining that a null parentId means a root folder.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Lista las carpetas de entornos del usuario") plus the returned field set {id, name, parentId}. It also distinguishes its scope from the generic folders_list siblings by naming environment folders and tying the result to the folderId used by environments_list.

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 a clear reason to call it: resolving the folderId returned by environments_list. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast it with folders_list/issue_folders_list, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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