list_storage_box_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint (the box must be active, implying a failure mode for inactive boxes) and the folders-only result filter, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or behavior on a nonexistent path.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the parenthetical exclusion and precondition. The fragment 'Box must be active' is terse but still readable.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, a clear read-only annotation profile, and no output schema to explain. The description covers scope, the folders-only filter, and the activation prerequisite, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with 'id' documented as Storage Box ID and 'path' documented as a relative path defaulting to root. The description's mention of 'directory' loosely maps to path but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list folders in a Storage Box directory) and explicitly narrows scope with '(not files)', which separates it from a hypothetical file-listing operation and from sibling tools like list_storage_boxes or list_storage_box_subaccounts. It does not name an alternative tool directly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

'Box must be active' is a genuine precondition and '(not files)' implies when-not-to-use for file listing, which is more than nothing. However, no alternative tool is named for retrieving files or for listing boxes at the top level, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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