list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation (list folders) and parameter descriptions. It does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, pagination, or what happens with invalid hostnames. The output schema exists but its content is unknown, so return structure is unexplained.

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 short and front-loaded with the one-line summary. The Args section is concise and directly relevant. No extraneous information. However, the structure could be slightly tighter by integrating parameter descriptions into the summary, but it remains efficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an unknown output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., recursion depth, error handling) and usage context (when to use vs siblings). For a simple list tool, it meets minimum requirements but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations: hostname includes an example value, and folder_type lists the possible types (VIRTUAL_MACHINE, HOST, DATACENTER, DATASTORE, NETWORK). This adds significant value beyond the schema, though the allowed values could be more formally enforced.

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 'List folders by type,' specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'folders', and the qualification 'by type'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_folder_details (which retrieves details of a single folder) and list_datacenters (different resource).

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 description explains the parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_folder_details). It implies usage through the Args section but lacks guidance on context or exclusions.

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