list_folders

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds the alias 'Contexts' and scoping to a project, but does not disclose pagination, return format, or other behavioral details. With annotations present, this is acceptable 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is structured but could be cleaner (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The key parameter is explained, but the optional config parameter is ignored, and the return values are not described. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a similarly named sibling, a bit more detail would make it complete.

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 description explains the required parameter project_id as 'The project UUID (from list_projects),' which adds meaningful provenance and type hints. However, the optional 'config' parameter is not described, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only covers half the 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 clearly states the tool 'List the folders (Contexts) in a project' with a specific verb and resource. The scope is defined by 'in a project,' which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'list_folder,' so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

The description implies a prerequisite by stating 'project_id: The project UUID (from list_projects),' which guides the user to call list_projects first. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is limited.

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