apidog_analyze_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 clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation through 'Analyze' and 'Returns,' and it indicates the tool produces a snapshot of current structure rather than modifying it. It does not go into auth or rate-limit details, but those are less critical for a simple analysis call.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, return values are itemized, and the usage context is given in a final short directive. Every sentence 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?

Given that there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states the resource analyzed, the specific outputs returned, and the recommended usage context. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriately high.

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 states a specific action ('Analyze the current folder structure of all endpoints') and explicitly lists the return contents: folder tree, endpoint counts per folder, and unassigned endpoints. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like apidog_propose_reorganization by framing this as the analytical precursor rather than the mutation step.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as a first step before proposing reorganization.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the instruction is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter analysis tool.

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