tracecat_list_folders

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list all workflow folders', implying it is a safe read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or response format. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the what but not the how or what to expect as output. For a simple listing tool, it is minimally complete, but the absence of return format details leaves uncertainty. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not rich completeness.

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 provides a description for the only parameter (parent_path), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is in the schema. Thus, a baseline score of 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 specifically states 'List all workflow folders in the current workspace', which clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (folders), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like tracecat_list_workflows or tracecat_list_tables, which are for different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For instance, there is no hint about related tools like tracecat_move_workflow_to_folder.

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