List BIM View Folders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination semantics (page/per_page, pages remaining), the read-only guarantee in prose, and specific error payload expectations (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of response and failure behavior beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sized but every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, return format, pagination, safety, error handling, required parameter, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core function and remains focused without redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the JSON array return and pagination reporting. It covers error conditions and authentication/permission failures, making the tool's behavior predictable. Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, this is complete for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by identifying project_id as required and explaining that page and per_page control pagination, which clarifies how these parameters influence the response. It does not detail filter parameters, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 lists BIM View Folders for a specified project, using a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself by noting its use for discovering folders and looking up IDs before calling other tools, setting it apart from creation and management siblings.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to discover BIM view folders or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It implies the primary use case and differentiates from mutating siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it.

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