b24_disk_folder_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that the tool lists folder contents. It does not mention pagination behavior, whether the response includes files and subfolders, authentication/webhook expectations, or errors, so an agent cannot predict side effects or response handling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the core operation in minimal space, which is exactly what conciseness requires.

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 having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not specify the shape of the returned listing, how filtering composes with pagination, or which sibling tools handle storage/file-level operations. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves important context uncovered.

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 80%, so the schema already explains limit, start, filter, and folder_id; the description adds essentially no new parameter meaning beyond the folder context. webhook_url is left undocumented, but the high baseline coverage means the description is not required to compensate.

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 has a specific verb ('Lista'), a clear resource ('el contenido de una carpeta en el Disk de Bitrix24'), and it makes the tool's intent obvious. It distinguishes itself from disk file get/upload siblings by focusing on listing a folder's contents, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 given about when to choose this tool over b24_disk_storages, b24_disk_file_get, or other disk siblings. The description only states what it does, not when to use it or what conditions make it the right choice.

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