clio_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions authentication routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any destructive effects. The absence of such information leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 short (3 sentences) but not optimally front-loaded. It begins with the tool name and routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...'), which may distract from the core purpose. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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?

The description is severely incomplete given the absence of annotations and minimal schema. It does not explain what folders are returned, how to interpret the output (despite having an output schema), or any limitations. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based solely on the description.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. It does not specify what keys or values are expected for listing folders, such as parent folder ID, pagination, or filters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 it performs a 'list_folders' operation but does not specify what entity's folders are being listed (e.g., document folders, matter folders). The context of Clio suggests legal practice management, but the description lacks resource specificity, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'clio_list_documents' or 'clio_list_matters'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clio_list_documents, clio_list_matters). There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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