Retrieves a list of proxy folders with filtering, sorting, and pagination options.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one non-obvious behavior -- default pagination and sorting when parameters are omitted -- but says nothing about return volume limits or filter interaction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is mild redundancy between the title's 'filtering, sorting, and pagination options' and the body's restatement of the same capabilities, but nothing is bloated.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional refinement, and default behavior. Missing only differentiation from sibling list tools, which is the main residual gap.

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%, so every parameter (id, name, start, total, sorting, location, workspaceId) is already documented, including the sorting string format and the -1 workspace convention. The description adds no parameter meaning 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 ('get the list of proxy folders'), which is clearer than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings like get_profile_folders or get_proxies, leaving the agent to infer the resource boundary from the name alone.

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 describes how optional parameters refine results and what happens when none are supplied ('first page ... default sorting order'), which gives useful invocation context. But it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling folder/proxy list tools and no exclusions.

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