list-folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it well: it declares 'Read-only,' explains the alphabetical ordering and why that matches the v14 sidebar, and details the data fields returned. It also explains the optional type filtering behavior, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: it lists return fields, describes ordering behavior, and ties the tool to real downstream use cases. The key concept ('Read the sidebar folder TREE') is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 for a read-only listing tool: it names output fields, explains ordering, states the optional filter, and tells the agent exactly why and when to call it. With no output schema present, this level of detail is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 already documents the optional 'type' parameter with a full enum and description at 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that omitting type returns the whole sidebar and that it filters to one document type, going slightly beyond the schema's static enum list.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('sidebar folder TREE'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: tree order, id, nesting depth, path, color, sort value, parent, and counts. It clearly differentiates this listing tool from siblings like create-folder, update-folder, and delete-folder.

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 explicitly positions itself as 'the inspect step the folder tools were missing' and tells the agent to use it to find ids/names for update-folder, delete-folder, move-documents, and create tool folder params. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance and names the downstream alternatives it supports.

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