list_folders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates that. No return shape, pagination, ordering, or scope behavior is disclosed, so the description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond the structured annotation.

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 'Args:' block is direct and the tag is front-loaded, with no wasted prose. The one gap is that the '[READ]' marker duplicates the annotation rather than contributing new information.

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 single-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin — it lacks any indication of return contents or how it relates to the dashboard/datasource list siblings.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does: 'Grafana target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the source and the default semantics of the sole parameter, which the bare 'Target' schema field does not.

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 verb 'list' plus the resource 'Grafana folders' clearly states what the tool does, so an agent can identify it. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from adjacent list tools such as list_dashboards or list_datasources beyond the resource name.

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 '[READ]' tag implies a safe retrieval operation but there is no statement of when to use this versus list_dashboards (e.g. to resolve folder UIDs before dashboard queries) and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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