get_chat_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that folders have ids and names; it does not explicitly say the call is read-only, whether it requires login, or how it behaves when there are no folders. The 'get' prefix implies retrieval, but the description itself is minimal.

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 extremely short and contains no filler; the core point about folders and their id/name fields is immediately visible. It leans a little toward under-specification rather than being a well-rounded sentence, but it wastes no words.

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 is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. The main gap is contextual: it does not say when to use this instead of sibling tools or whether authentication is required, which an agent needs to invoke it at the right time.

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 an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The no-parameter baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented arguments.

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 identifies the specific resource ('folders of the account') and the exposed fields ('their id and names'), which is enough to distinguish this from siblings like list_dialogs or get_chat. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb phrase, but the tool name 'get' supplies the operation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dialogs or get_chat. It also does not mention prerequisites like authentication, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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