list_folders

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

The description includes a '[READ]' tag, which is a behavioral hint, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of disclosure. No other behavioral traits are mentioned (e.g., authentication, output format, pagination, or side effects). This is minimal at best.

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 extremely concise, with a clear READ tag, resource name, and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place and the front-loaded READ indicator aids quick scanning.

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, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., folder IDs, names) or any other relevant context, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. It works but leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema provides only a type and default for the target parameter, with no description. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that it is a Grafana target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Grafana folders' and the tool name 'list_folders' makes the verb explicit, though the description itself lacks an explicit action verb. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like list_dashboards and list_datasources by the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions an optional target parameter without any context about when this tool is appropriate or how it relates to other list tools.

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