list_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful ordering trait (skills returned by reference before files), but says nothing about pagination, empty-folder behavior, or depth of listing.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the key detail about return ordering. The Args block formatting is boilerplate overhead for a single parameter that could be folded into one sentence, so it is slightly padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies both the content model and parameter provenance — enough to invoke correctly. Only listing scope (recursive? paginated?) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, explaining that folder_id is the folder ID sourced from list_folders or create_folder. That provenance is real semantic value beyond the bare string type in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a folder's contents') and clarifies the composition of that content — skills by reference first, then files — which implicitly distinguishes it from list_folders (folders, not folder contents). It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the parenthetical on folder_id points the agent to list_folders or create_folder to obtain the ID, which indirectly signals when this tool applies. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing or precondition statement.

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