query_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auth requirements (V1 + V2 when include_project_counts=True), which is helpful. However, it fails to disclose behavioral traits like default behavior (returns folders sorted? pagination? empty results?) or what happens when no parameters are provided.

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 concise with one main sentence and structured metadata tags (Category, Auth, Related). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filtering works in detail. The related tools are named but not differentiated in terms of when to use each.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at include_project_counts with 'optional project counts' but does not explain name_query, regex, or limit. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds negligible semantic value beyond them.

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 it searches/filters project folders with optional project counts. The verb 'search/filter' and resource 'project folders' are specific, but it could be more precise about the exact filtering capabilities. The related tools list helps distinguish, but not fully.

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?

Related tools are listed (workspace_map, list_project_folders, query_projects), providing some guidance on when to use alternatives. However, no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' directions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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