list-contact-folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior: it lists the built-in 'Contacts' folder, mentions that user-created folders also appear, and specifies the returned properties (id, displayName, parentFolderId). This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect from the call.

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 well-structured: a clear main sentence, followed by a 💡 TIP section that enriches without being redundant. It is moderately long but every sentence earns its place—mentioning return fields, default folder identification, and sibling tools. Slight verbosity in the tip, but overall efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: 'Returns id, displayName, and parentFolderId.' It also covers query parametrization and usage ordering. For a simple list operation, this is fully self-sufficient; an agent knows exactly what it will get and when to call it.

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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'Supports OData query parameters' without detailing any parameter-specific meaning, relying on the schema's extensive parameter descriptions (which themselves include usage tips like 'Start small' for top). The description adds no new semantic value beyond confirming OData support.

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: 'Get the contact folder collection in the default Contacts folder of the signed-in user.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like `list-contact-folder-child-folders` by emphasizing the default folder scope. It also names the return fields, which aids selection.

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 says 'Use this before list-contact-folder-contacts or create-contact-in-folder to discover folder ids,' directly guiding when to select this tool over alternatives. It also explains how to identify the default folder (match displayName === 'Contacts') and notes the built-in folder, providing practical usage context.

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