document_intelligence_list_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under authentication scopes. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. This is minimal transparency beyond the auth context.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence is the main function, the second adds routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is front-loaded enough and avoids unnecessary words, though the first sentence could be more informative.

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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented there) and two parameters, the description lacks a clear statement of what the tool actually accomplishes (e.g., list folder contents vs. list folders). With siblings like `document_intelligence_search_folder` and `list_folder`, this omission makes the description incomplete for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description adds meaningful semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies that message is a high-level goal and inputs are structured parameters, which helps an agent understand how to use these parameters.

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 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `list_folder`' which is almost tautological. It does not clarify what listing a folder means (e.g., listing folder contents or subfolders). The title is null, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like `document_intelligence_search_folder` or the generic `list_folder`, both of which could be confused with this tool.

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. The description only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is infrastructure detail, not usage context. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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