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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—it doesn't mention permission requirements, pagination, or the fact that omitting workspace_id returns folders from all accessible accounts (a behavior only in the schema).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context noted elsewhere.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the important scoping behavior (that workspace_id restricts results to one account) that an agent would need to know for correct invocation, even though that detail is available in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, fully explaining the workspace_id filter. The description itself adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Возвращает') and resource ('список папок'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_workspace_list or manage_workspace_folder, and the phrase 'текущего пользователя' is somewhat ambiguous about whether it covers all accessible accounts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the optional workspace_id parameter, which the schema explains as the key filter, nor does it suggest any related tool or context for selection.

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