list_workspace_structure

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

Annotations already fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds the 'visible' qualifier, hinting results are permission-filtered, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or depth 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, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the kind=folders usage hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a rich output schema, complete annotations, and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and the discriminator usage, which it does. The only gap is the undefined meaning of 'visible'/scope filtering.

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 100% and each discriminator field is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that parentId drives child listing, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and the resources it returns (visible folders, categories, or tags) with explicit scope (active workspace or category scope). The resource set cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_trash or read_document, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

It gives one concrete usage cue – 'Set kind=folders to inspect root folders or children of parentId' – which tells the agent when the folders branch applies. However it offers no guidance on choosing between categories and tags, nor any exclusions or named alternatives.

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