get_webi_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: results are limited to direct children (non-recursive) and only identifiers are returned. It says nothing about authentication, permissions, empty folders, or error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier 'directly inside' is placed where it does the most work.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly notes that only IDs come back. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented at the schema level, the definition leaves an agent unsure how to supply folder_id or when this beats get_documents.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter, folder_id, whose description is empty. The description only implies it is a 'repository folder', leaving the expected format (numeric ID vs path) and how to obtain a valid value unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb (Lists), resource (Web Intelligence document IDs), and scope (directly inside a repository folder), which lets an agent separate it from the broader get_documents or the detail-oriented get_doc_details. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_documents, get_doc_details, or get_doc_properties, all of which sit in the same namespace. The phrase 'directly inside' weakly implies non-recursive listing, but no alternative or condition is stated.

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