get_root_folders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying output includes names, IDs, basic structure, and explicitly states it does not return aggregate counts. It does not mention rate limits or authorization beyond what annotations imply.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the main action. The parenthetical seems slightly out of place but does not harm clarity significantly. Efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description states what is returned and a key limitation (no aggregate counts). However, it does not mention pagination, sorting behavior, or the significance of include_all_tree beyond the schema. Adequate but not fully 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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter interactions or defaults beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists root folders with names, IDs, and basic structure, and distinguishes itself by noting it does not provide aggregate counts. It also provides a context hint about message types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_folder or get_folder_with_messages.

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 implies usage when needing top-level folder structure and mentions it lacks aggregate counts, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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