list_git_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It briefly implies a read-only operation via 'read the Drive copy' but lacks details about output format, authentication specifics, or side effects. The GitHub token directive is more about agent conduct than tool behavior.

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 sentences, no redundant wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description captures the primary purpose and a key usage rule, but omits any explanation of the teamId parameter and does not describe the return value format. For a simple listing tool it is partially complete, but these omissions create ambiguity for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter teamId is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and never mentioned in the description. The agent has no way to infer what value to pass or whether it filters results. This is a significant gap requiring compensation that does not occur.

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 clearly states that the tool lists Drive folders that mirror a private git repo, using a specific verb 'List' and a precise resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files or list_folder_children by scoping to git-mirrored folders.

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 instruction 'Agents read the Drive copy — never ask for a GitHub token' gives clear usage guidance: prefer this tool for git-repo content and do not request GitHub credentials. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, it implies this is the correct option when dealing with git mirrors.

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