Publishing Folders

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose in reviewing hierarchy and access settings, without contradicting annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific use cases, making it efficient and well-structured with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete for a read-only listing tool. However, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or pagination behavior to fully guide the agent.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage, which aligns with the empty input 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 specific action ('List published resource folders') and resource ('folders that organise applications and desktops'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ras_pub_get_all_items or ras_pub_get_desktops by focusing on folder hierarchy and organisation rather than individual items or resources.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('review the folder hierarchy, check resource organisation, or verify folder-level access settings'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks, such as ras_pub_get_all_items for a broader list.

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