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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description's GET endpoint and 'List' verb are consistent with that. It adds that results include id, name, and path, but gives no further detail on pagination behavior or edge cases.

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?

A single sentence conveys the purpose, resource scope, returned fields, and API endpoint with zero filler. Every word contributes to usability.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It even names the fields returned in the absence of an output schema; only explicit sibling-comparison guidance is missing.

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?

All five parameters already have descriptive schema comments, covering limit, offset, branchId, projectId, and directoryId. The description adds no new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List directories (folders) in a project', names the returned fields, and includes the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crowdin_list_files and crowdin_list_branches.

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 makes it clear this is for listing directories within a project, and the endpoint confirms scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over sibling list tools or any exclusions.

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