list_project_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (lists all folders) and specifies the return fields (id, name, sortOrder). It also mentions authentication V2 via bracket notation. While no side effects or rate limits are mentioned, the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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 extremely concise, with just a few lines containing the main purpose, structured metadata (category, auth, related), return fields, and usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 has no parameters and a simple output structure, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. An output schema exists, so return details are further documented externally. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what is returned (id, name, sortOrder) and how to use the output (as group_id in other tools), making the tool's purpose and usage clear.

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 clearly states the tool lists all project folders (groups). The verb 'List' and resource 'project folders' are specific, and the addition of '(groups)' clarifies the concept. It distinguishes from siblings like manage_project_folders (which implies CRUD) and list_projects (which lists projects, not folders).

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 explicitly tells agents to use folder IDs as group_id in create/update_project, providing a clear usage context. It also lists related tools for reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative tools, though the sibling names imply distinct purposes.

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