list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'List all folders' but does not disclose whether it includes subfolders, pagination, or read-only nature (implied). The behavior is straightforward but lacks detail on what 'all' encompasses.

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 short sentence, efficient and front-loaded. It wastes no words but could be slightly more informative (e.g., mention output format) without losing conciseness.

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 and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., folder names, IDs) or scope (top-level only), which would help the agent understand what to expect.

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, so the input schema fully covers it (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter information, which is appropriate. No additional semantics needed.

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 'List all folders in your workspace' clearly indicates the tool lists folders (specific resource) and implies a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_folder' and 'delete_folder' by focusing on listing, but lacks detail on scope (e.g., recursive or top-level only).

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tables' or 'create_folder'. Usage is implied: use when you need to see available folders. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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