Notes List Folders

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already communicate the safety profile, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond calling the tool 'delegated'. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes no useful behavior information such as default account scoping, pagination semantics, or whether nested/empty folders are returned.

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, but it is short because it is under-specified, not because it is efficiently informative. The sentence spends its words restating the tool name and MCP exposure, neither of which helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the output schema and annotations exist, the description is functionally empty for an agent trying to decide when and how to use this tool. It does not explain the folder-listing behavior, optional account filtering, or pagination semantics, so the definition is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, and the description does not mention limit, offset, or account_name. The agent gets only raw parameter names and defaults from the schema; no semantic meaning is supplied for these parameters in either the description or schema property descriptions.

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 is essentially a tautology: it restates the tool name 'notes_list_folders' and says it is exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP, but never states that it lists folders or what listing folders entails. The functional meaning is only inferable from the name/title, not from the description.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes_list_accounts, notes_list_notes, or notes_create_folder. The description says nothing about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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