get_root_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what is included (names, IDs, basic structure) and excluded (aggregate counts), but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Required to inform message type...') is awkwardly phrased and could be integrated more smoothly. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parenthetical feels tacked on rather than flowing naturally.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral context, but doesn't explain return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar folder-related tools. With annotations covering safety, it's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'type' parameter is required and hinting at its purpose ('Required to inform message type'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'include_all_tree' or sorting options.

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: 'Lists all root folders for a given workspace, including their names, IDs, and basic structure.' It specifies the resource (root folders) and verb (lists), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_folder' or 'get_folder_with_messages' in terms of scope or depth.

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 like 'get_folder' or 'get_folder_with_messages'. It mentions a required parameter constraint ('Required to inform message type:voicememo,prerecorded'), but this is more about parameter usage than tool selection context.

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