list_secret_folders

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that built-in storage returns supported=false — but says nothing about permissions, what a folder record contains, or whether the list is paginated.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it does carry information rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never indicates the shape of the returned folder list (names, ids, hierarchy) or what an agent should do when supported=false. The unsupported-backend case is flagged but not resolved.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the schema is empty and the description correctly implies a no-argument call. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures that.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List ... vault folders'), which clearly separates it from the mutating sibling create_secret_folder. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state scope (all folders? filtered?), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus search_secrets, list_categories, or get_secret_metadata. The note about built-in storage is a behavioral caveat rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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