List folders

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: folder ids survive renames, the response is a flat list with null parents marking top level, and items counts only direct children. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's remaining return-shape detail partially overlaps the output schema, keeping this just below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the what and the call-ordering prerequisite before the return-shape notes. It is dense but every clause carries instruction value, though the items/uses field explanations edge into territory the output schema already covers.

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?

For a no-param, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, when to skip it, how to reconstruct nesting from the flat list, and how to break ties between candidate folders. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, and the description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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 and resource ('List the reader's folder tree') and immediately defines the resource's role in the domain ('the set of categories driftnet sorts new links into'). That framing lets an agent distinguish it from driftnet_search_items or driftnet_suggest_folders without opening any schema.

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?

Names five concrete downstream tools that require ids from this call (move_items, create/update/delete_folder, folder-filtered search_items) and gives an explicit negative condition: 'Skip it when you already listed the folders in this session and nothing changed.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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