folders_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral detail — that 'list' returns every folder with its agentIDs and that 'get' accepts either an id or an exact name — but says nothing about lookup failures when a name doesn't match or about what 'get' actually returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact action list; the parenthetical definition of folders is worth its space. No filler, though the action enumeration could be tightened.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core lookup paths but omits what 'get' returns, the compact vs full response tradeoff, and behavior when neither folderId nor name resolves. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented, including the compact/full 'mode' toggle which the description never mentions. The description does clarify that folderId and name are alternatives for the same 'get' lookup, which adds a bit of meaning beyond the schema, but it leaves 'mode' entirely to the schema.

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 ('Read') and a precisely defined resource ('agent folders of the workspace'), including a disambiguating gloss that these are the dashboard folders grouping agents. The two supported actions are enumerated, so the agent knows the tool's exact surface without opening the schema.

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 enumerates the actions and the selector for 'get' (folderId or exact name), which implies usage, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as folders_write or list_agents, nor any prerequisites.

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