get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, whether archived folders are excluded by default, response format, or authentication/authorization requirements. The archived parameter hints that archived items are excluded by default, but this is only implied, not stated.

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 a single short sentence - highly efficient with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly. Not verbose, though it could arguably trade some conciseness for more behavioral detail.

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?

This is a list-retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema. Given that it returns potentially many items, the description should disclose response shape, default filtering (archived excluded), ordering, and pagination. With just 6 words, it leaves the agent guessing about several critical behaviors beyond what the schema reveals.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (space_id, archived). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between the archived flag and default behavior, nor any format requirements for space_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get all folders in a space'), which identifies what the tool retrieves. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_folder (singular, likely fetching a single folder), get_folderless_lists, or get_lists - the scoping is somewhat vague regarding whether this includes nested items or follows the space hierarchy.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling folder/list/space retrieval tools, an agent cannot tell whether get_folders is the right choice over get_folder, get_folder_views, or other list-level tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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