twitter_bookmark_folders

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

Annotations already cover read-only (readOnlyHint) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable transparency by mentioning the authenticated session requirement and specifying the exact output fields (id, name, cover image), which is not in the annotations.

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 moderately concise, with four sentences covering purpose, differentiation, auth, output, and alternative usage. Each sentence adds value, though it could be tightened by removing the parenthetical definition of 'collections' without losing meaning.

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 the simplicity of the tool (list folders) and the presence of a full input schema with per-parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, auth prerequisite, output fields, and alternatives. It lacks details on error cases or rate limits, but these are not critical for this read-only operation.

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 provides descriptions for each optional parameter (ct0, proxy_url, auth_token, user_agent). The description adds semantic clarity by stating 'Takes no arguments' meaning no resource-specific arguments, and implies these parameters are for session/auth context. However, the phrase 'Takes no arguments' could be slightly misleading given the schema parameters, but it is contextually clear.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('YOUR authenticated account's bookmark FOLDERS'), and differentiates from the flat bookmarks list (twitter_bookmarks) and the folder timeline tool. It also explains the internal name 'collections' for clarity.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with twitter_bookmarks (flat list) and directs users to twitter_bookmark_folder_timeline for reading tweets inside a folder, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the authentication requirement as a prerequisite.

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