document_intelligence_list_folder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description never clarifies what destructive behavior could result or how the free-text message might trigger it. It does add useful context that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, for a tool marked destructive, the lack of warning or behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 compact and logically organized with an Args section, and the routing sentence is relevant context. However, the brevity comes at the expense of substantive content, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise. It reads cleanly but does not earn its place as a useful tool definition.

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 that funnels free-text objectives into a domain-agent dispatcher and carries a destructiveHint, the description omits critical information about what list_folder does, when to use it, and how to structure inputs. The existing output schema reduces the need to document return values, but purpose, usage, and parameter semantics remain too incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the explanatory burden. It labels message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which only says what data type to pass, not what content or structure is expected for list_folder. No examples or domain-specific field meanings are given, leaving the parameters almost as opaque as the bare 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 only restates the action name ('Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `list_folder`') without explaining what listing a folder actually does, what it returns, or which folders are affected. This is closer to a tautology than a functional explanation. The dispatcher routing detail adds context about mechanism but not about the tool's intended purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related sibling tools such as document_intelligence_search_folder, list_folder, or search_folder. The description offers no prerequisites, alternatives, exclusions, or decision criteria. The routing and scoping context does not help an agent choose this tool.

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