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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description reinforces this with 'List'. It also discloses the project context requirement. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured, leading with the main purpose and then providing hierarchical context, parameter guidance, and a prerequisite in two sentences. No unnecessary words.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description supplies some return-related context (parentFolderId, rowVersion) but does not fully describe the response shape, such as array format, pagination, or other folder fields. This leaves moderate ambiguity.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is high. The description adds meaningful detail about folderId's role in returning a single folder with its rowVersion, going slightly beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly specifies a list operation for the folder structure of an API specification, including the hierarchical parentFolderId relationship. This distinguishes it from other list tools that target different resources.

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?

It explicitly states that passing folderId retrieves a single folder and provides its rowVersion for update_folder, and it notes the set_context prerequisite. This gives clear guidance on how and when to invoke the tool.

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