List Folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: folder names are returned decrypted. It does not cover authorization requirements or pagination/result-size behavior for what could be a large personal vault.

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 core statement is front-loaded and short, but the definition is cluttered by the 'CONCEPT:VW-ECO.mcp.folder-operations' tag and a parenthetical restating the internal group name, neither of which helps an agent decide or invoke. The middle sentence about create_folder is scoped to a different tool.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the decrypted-names note is a valuable addition. Still, for a list operation on a large sibling set, the definition omits any mention of filtering, ordering, or whether the personal vault requires an authenticated session.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (params_json) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description mentions 'name' but only in the context of create_folder, not this tool's own params_json payload, so it adds little parameter-level meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource ('List folders') and names the domain (personal-vault folders, vaultwarden_folders). It also explains how the rest of the folder API surface is reached, which helps place it among a very large sibling set. The phrase 'Read and write personal-vault folders' is slightly ambiguous for a list-only tool but the following sentence clarifies the listing behavior.

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?

It tells the agent that only list_folders and create_folder return decrypted names and that every other folders route is reached via call_operation, which is useful routing guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over similarly named siblings like vaultwarden_get_folders or vaultwarden_get_folder, leaving the primary selection decision implicit.

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