list_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the default-folder behavior is a useful disclosure the schema does not fully spell out (folder default null is only explained here), but permissions, pagination/limit behavior, and error conditions remain undocumented.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading what is listed before the default-folder note. Nothing extraneous is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is sibling routing, which belongs to usage guidelines rather than completeness of the call itself.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that a null/omitted folder resolves to the project home folder, which the schema's 'Folder to list.' description does not convey.

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 ('List') and resource ('GIS files and subfolders on disk'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as list_workspace_contents or search_data, which likely overlap in listing on-disk content.

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?

'Defaults to the project home folder' describes a default behavior rather than when to use this tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over list_workspace_contents, search_data, or get_project_items, all of which are adjacent in the sibling set.

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