motimate_list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Gibt alle Ordner zurück' makes the read-only intent clear, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, authentication, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a simple zero-parameter list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and wastes no 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?

The description is complete enough for a very simple zero-parameter tool, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain what each folder entry contains or how results are returned. It also omits any mention of ordering or filtering behavior, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring explanation. The description naturally implies that the tool takes no arguments, which is consistent and sufficient.

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 a clear action and resource: it returns all folders where trainings are stored. It is specific enough to distinguish itself from search/create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with motimate_list_categories.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where a different tool like motimate_search_motis or motimate_list_categories would be more appropriate.

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