List custom dialog folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the alias 'chat filters' and the fact that inclusion rules are returned, but no additional behavioral context like pagination, scoping, or side effects beyond annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, includes a helpful parenthetical alias, and contains no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the simple tool and annotations, the description leaves a key gap: the accountId parameter is unexplained and there is no output schema. It does not specify the expected filtering behavior or the structure of inclusion rules, so the description is only partially complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter (accountId), and the description does not mention or explain it. An agent cannot determine what accountId does or whether it is optional from the given text.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource ('user-defined folders (a.k.a. chat filters)') and adds detail about inclusion rules, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_dialogs and folder management tools.

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 versus alternatives such as list_dialogs, search_dialogs, or folder creation/editing tools. The description only states what the tool does, not the context for selecting it.

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