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

No annotations are supplied, but the description discloses the non-obvious behavior of the null case: root folders of the user plus folders shared by others, carrying a role attribute. It is silent on pagination, ordering, and depth limits, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a listing tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the edge case, then the downstream usage. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 single optional parameter, read-style listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the call, the edge case, and the follow-up use of returned ids. Only the shape of the returned objects (fields beyond the role attribute) and any result limits remain unspecified.

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% and the schema already states null/omit = root, so the parameter is well documented structurally. The description still adds meaning by spelling out what 'raíz' actually expands to (user root folders plus shared folders with role), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 with scope: 'Lista las subcarpetas directas de una carpeta' — 'directas' rules out recursion ambiguity. It does not distinguish itself from the family of sibling folder listers (environment_folders_list, issue_folders_list, etc.), so the agent must infer which domain this belongs to.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for the null/omitted case (root folders plus sharedWithMe with role) and tells the agent what to do with the results: use the returned id as folderId in notes_list/notes_create. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the domain-specific folder listers.

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