list_folders

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include full paths and access-control data, and an unfiltered call returns every folder at any depth — an important signal that the default result set can be very large. It stops short of mentioning pagination or size limits.

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 filler, with the most decision-relevant fact (unfiltered = everything at any depth) placed where it will be read. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety, so what remains is query semantics — which it handles for the default case. The only gap is guidance on scoping large listings (pagination or filter selection) for a tool that can return an unbounded tree.

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%, so each parameter (path, parent_id, root_only) is already documented in the schema, including their defaults. The description only alludes to the notion of a filter without adding precedence rules or format details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists folders") and adds the returned payload shape ("full paths and access control"), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_media and list_presets. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls 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?

The second sentence implies usage context by explaining that no filter returns everything at any depth, hinting at a narrow-vs-broad query choice. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_media or when to apply path/parent_id/root_only, leaving routing to inference.

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