wrike_list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all folders and projects' without revealing that the tool supports optional filters (project, permalink, descendants, date range) or that 'all' may be subject to these filters. No behavior about pagination, response format, or access requirements is disclosed.

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, very short sentence that immediately states the core action. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral detail, so it is not a perfect example of efficient communication.

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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, a minimal one-liner is insufficient. There is no mention of what the response will contain (e.g., list of folder/project objects), how filtering parameters interact, or any typical use cases. The description would be more complete if it at least hinted at the filterable nature of the listing.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on how 'fields', 'project', or 'descendants' affect the results, leaving the schema's brief descriptions as the only guidance.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'folders and projects', making the primary function evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like wrike_get_folder_tree or wrike_get_folder, which also deal with folder listings. The word 'all' hints at a collection operation but lacks differentiation.

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 such as wrike_get_folder_tree for hierarchical listings or wrike_search_tasks for filtered searches. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.

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