list-folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool is 'Read-only' and lists all output fields (id, depth, path, color, parent, document counts, subfolder count). This gives full behavioral transparency with no contradictions.

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 densely packed with information but remains readable. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read the sidebar folder TREE') and uses clear punctuation. Slightly verbose with enumeration of use cases, but every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully compensates by detailing the return fields (id, depth, path, color, parent, document counts) and explicit use cases. For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter, this is complete and actionable.

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 100%: the only parameter 'type' has a comprehensive description in the schema itself. The description's mention of the parameter ('Filter to one document type... Omit for the whole sidebar') essentially repeats the schema description without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads the sidebar folder tree, providing tree order, ids, nesting depth, path, color, parent, document counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the 'inspect step' missing from other folder tools, explicitly naming update-folder, delete-folder, move-documents, and create tools.

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 states when to use: to find ids/names for folder operations without guessing. It contrasts with other folder tools that need ids, and implies not to use when simply listing documents. The last sentence 'without guessing what exists' provides clear context.

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