vibemk_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that parent filtering is optional and that the tool shows folder structure, but it does not state what the return format is, whether the structure is recursive, whether it is paginated, or what 'optional parent filtering' means in terms of default behavior (root level). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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 efficient sentence with an emoji, front-loading the verb and resource, and packing the optional-filtering constraint into the same clause. Zero wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the return value unspecified. Since there is no output schema to fall back on, the description could reasonably state what is returned (folder list, hierarchy depth), which it does not. Adequate but with a noticeable gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parent parameter already has a clear description ('Parent folder path to filter'). The tool description mentions parent filtering, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), and notes optional parent filtering. It clearly distinguishes from sibling folder tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and update_folder, which are all mutation operations rather than read-only listing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling get_folder_hosts that could be conflated with folder listing, and no mention of when to use this vs. drilling into a folder's hosts. The description implies a read-only structure-browsing use case but provides no explicit exclusions.

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