ticktick_list_folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context by explaining that 'Folders are used to organize projects,' which helps the agent understand the organizational role of folders. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 only two sentences, both of which are directly relevant. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides helpful context about folder usage. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only list operation with no parameters), the description combined with annotations and the presence of an output schema provides sufficient context. The description explains what folders are and that they're being listed, which is adequate for this low-complexity tool. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on when to use versus siblings.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the parameter is an empty object (no actual input fields). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none to document. This meets the baseline for tools with 0 parameters, as the schema already indicates no inputs are required.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all project folders'), and explains what folders are used for. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_list_projects' or 'ticktick_list_tags', which have similar listing functions for different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_project' for single project retrieval or 'ticktick_list_projects' for listing projects instead of folders, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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