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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that ids and paths are returned, which helps since there is no output schema, but says nothing about auth needs, 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and scoped before the downstream usage note. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, everything an agent needs is present: the resource scope, the returned identifiers, and how those identifiers feed create_endpoint and create_folder. Safety is covered by annotations, so the absence of an output schema is not a 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'workspace' parameter is documented as a slug from list_workspaces. The description repeats the workspace scoping but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List folders (and subfolders) in a workspace') and clarifies the returned content (ids and paths). The resource name uniquely separates it from list_resources and list_workspaces, though no sibling is named explicitly as a contrast.

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 concrete downstream context: use a returned folder id as create_endpoint's folder_id or create_folder's parent_folder_id. That tells an agent when it needs this tool, but there are no exclusions or explicit 'use X instead' routing.

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