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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the result is paginated, must be followed to completion, and is ordered by folder ID — useful detail an agent needs to loop correctly.

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 sentences, zero filler. The scope options are front-loaded and the pagination rule follows immediately after.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs the listing scope and pagination contract, both of which it supplies. Minor gaps remain around limit defaults and mutually exclusive scope parameters.

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 50% — team and workspaceId are documented in-schema, while limit and cursor are not. The description compensates partially by explaining how to follow pagination, but it refers to 'nextCursor' while the input parameter is 'cursor', which can cause an agent to look for the wrong field, and it never mentions the limit parameter or its bound.

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 (list) and resource (folders) and enumerates the three scoping modes (personal, team, workspace). It implicitly separates itself from folder_show, but never names siblings like folder_create or folder_show explicitly, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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 implies when to use each scope by tying 'team' and 'workspaceId' to their parameter names, which is helpful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on what happens if multiple scope parameters are supplied, nor does it point to alternatives.

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