lc_list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds details about output content (counts and a few titles), which goes beyond merely restating the tool name. It does not discuss deeper behavior like sorting or folder traversal, but for a simple list operation that is not a significant gap.

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 focused sentence that immediately states the action, target resource, and output contents. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and what it returns. The phrase 'a few titles' is slightly vague but not misleading for a straightforward folder listing tool.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter-level semantics to add. The schema already fully covers the parameter surface at 100% coverage, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('song folders inside the Lovely Composer music root') and even states what data is returned ('song counts and a few titles'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lc_list_songs, which lists songs rather than folders.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a user wants an overview of song folders with counts and titles. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with lc_list_songs or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives; the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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