list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not clarify whether 'all folders' means recursive listing, what happens when a path is invalid, or whether the operation is read-only. The parameter description in the schema hints at listing subfolders from a path, but ambiguity remains about default scope and error 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is easy to read and free of filler. While it could include more detail, the brevity is appropriate for such a simple operation, though it arguably borders on under-specification.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format, recursion behavior, and error cases. The absence of an output schema means the description should have disclosed what the list returns, but it does not, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'path' with full coverage (100%): 'Path to list subfolders from (optional, defaults to root)'. The tool description adds no further meaning, but since the schema already provides clear semantics, this meets the baseline for parameter understanding.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List all folders in the vault.' The verb 'list' plus the resource 'folders' clearly identifies the operation, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_notes and list_tags by targeting folders specifically.

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 implies usage for listing folders but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It is clear that this is the appropriate tool for folder enumeration, but lacks direct comparison or edge-case guidance such as when to use list_folders with a path versus listing all.

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