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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering by position then name, nested folder semantics, and that each folder includes resource_count. It doesn't describe the full response shape, but the listing operation is read-only and the key behaviors are clearly stated.

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 focused sentences with no repetition. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the key nesting behavior and output detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers ordering, nesting, root/folder-child selection, and a notable response field. It doesn't state what happens when parent_folder_id is omitted entirely, which is a minor ambiguity, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and parent_folder_id. The description adds meaningful context for parent_folder_id ('root' vs folder id) and mentions resource_count in the response, but it doesn't add anything beyond the schema for limit or offset.

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 states the tool's function: 'List resource-library folders in the authenticated community.' It includes specific details about ordering, nesting, and scope, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like hivelearn_list_resources and hivelearn_get_resource_folder by using the 'folder' resource and listing semantics.

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 gives clear usage context for the key parameter: 'pass parent_folder_id="root" for top-level only, or a folder id for its children.' It explains nested folder traversal and mentions pagination fields exist via limit/offset in the schema, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_resources.

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