List folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context: it states 'Page through' (pagination) and 'Costs nothing' (no billing impact), which goes beyond the annotations. The absence of rate limits/auth notes is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the function, the second explains downstream usage and cost. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and pagination. It names relevant sibling tools for downstream operations, providing context. It could mention the return format or sort options, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters (sort, limit, beforeDate), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; 'Page through' implies pagination but the schema already explains beforeDate. The description doesn't introduce new information about parameter usage.

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 pages through the account's folders/collections, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how the folderId is used with list_creations and organise_creation, which are likely to be confused with this tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool's output: use folderId with list_creations to see folder contents or with organise_creation to move items. It also notes the operation 'costs nothing', implying it is a safe/free operation for listing purposes. This is clear guidance on how to use the tool and its relationship to alternatives.

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