viwoods_list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that `notebooks` is recursive while `directly_inside` is shallow, that top-level shared notebooks are also included, and that the unshared figure is a count only rather than a list. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and every clause carries information (scope, recursion semantics, unshared count). The parenthetical Nextcloud disclaimer is slightly interruptive but earns its place as disambiguation.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the meaning of the recursive vs shallow counts. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's discussion of `notebooks` and `directly_inside` describes return shape rather than inputs, and an output schema exists, so no additional parameter meaning is required or expected.

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 names a concrete resource (folders of shared notebooks) and scopes it precisely to the Viwoods tablet's Paper app, explicitly ruling out Nextcloud folders. The listing verb comes from the tool name, and the scope line distinguishes it from viwoods_list_notebooks. It is clear, though it leans toward describing output fields rather than restating the action.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over siblings such as viwoods_list_notebooks or viwoods_search_handwriting, and no preconditions or exclusions beyond the Nextcloud disambiguation. An agent must infer the use case from the resource name alone.

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