Api folders org tree retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the payload is a tree of domains and perimeters — useful for identifying the return content, but nothing about depth, scoping, permissions, or whether all folders are included.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key noun ('tree of domains and perimeters') is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, which costs nothing on this dimension but leaves gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about the return value, yet it does not describe the shape of the tree (nesting, node fields, ordering) or whether the result is limited to accessible perimeters. Adequate to call, but thin for interpreting the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description has no parameters to explain and nothing is left ambiguous on the input side.

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 ('Return the tree of domains and perimeters') and clarifies that folders are expressed as domain/perimeter nodes. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling readers such as folders_list, folders_retrieve, or folders_cascade_info_retrieve, so the agent must infer which tree-shaped call it wants.

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 on when to use this versus folders_list, folders_retrieve, or folders_cascade_info_retrieve, and no stated preconditions. The only signal is the word 'tree', which implies hierarchical overview rather than flat listing.

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