uselink_list_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 discloses that the tool returns folders plus a parent_breadcrumb for navigation, which is useful behavioral context. It also clarifies the optional-parent behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the verb 'list' implies no side effects.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the main action upfront, and the second explains the conditional parameter. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential semantics: the project context, optional parent ID, and the returned data including parent_breadcrumb. It lacks mention of pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward list operation, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with only parent_folder_id having a description that matches the tool description's explanation. The tool description adds meaning to project_id by implying it identifies the project, but this is not deeply detailed. For parent_folder_id, it repeats the schema description rather than adding new info.

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 starts with 'List folders in a project,' which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uselink_list_documents and uselink_list_assets by focusing on folders. The additional detail about parent_folder_id and root/child listing further clarifies the scope.

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 explicitly explains when to pass parent_folder_id (to list children) and when to omit it (to list root folders). This provides clear context for parameter use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the purpose obvious.

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