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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the result shape (folder paths, contained dashboards, top-level dashboards) and a depth bound of 6 levels, which matters for organizing operations.

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 with zero waste: the returned content and depth limit come first, followed by usage timing and the skill prerequisite. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the hierarchy depth, and the calling context. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without guessing.

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% with both projectId and environment fully documented, including how to discover valid values via list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 (List) and resource (dashboard folders) and adds precise scope: nested up to 6 levels, each folder's path, contained dashboards, plus top-level dashboards. This distinguishes it clearly from list_dashboards, which would not return folder paths or hierarchy.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('before creating, moving, or organizing dashboards') and a prerequisite ('Load the manage-dashboards skill first'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_dashboards or get_dashboard for narrower needs, so 4 rather than 5.

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