List folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating that omitting workspace_id uses the Default Workspace, looked up once and cached, but it does not discuss pagination, error behavior, or return shape.

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 compact and front-loads the resource scope, then moves into parameter formats and default behavior. It is slightly telegraphic and does not open with an explicit verb, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple read-only two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, both parameter formats, and default workspace behavior. It lacks explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools, but the remaining gaps are minor given annotations and output schema.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does this well for both parameters: container accepts a public ID (GTM-XXXXXXX or linked G-/AW- destination ID) or API path accounts/<a>/containers/<c>, and workspace_id is numeric with a default fallback.

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 identifies the resource precisely: folders within a GTM workspace, and notes that tags/triggers/variables reference folders via folder_id. It does not explicitly say 'list' or distinguish this from sibling listing tools, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explains the container and workspace parameters, including the default workspace fallback, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gtm_list_workspaces or entity listing tools. The only usage-like context is that folders are referenced by folder_id.

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