List folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description enriches this by disclosing that 'the bridge returns every folder at once — there is no limit and no paging here.' This adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as the non-paginated, complete-result behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the practical use case, then the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the returned fields, the use case, and the non-paginated behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the returned fields instead of parameters, adding useful context about what the agent will receive.

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'), a specific resource ('the note folders of the local OpenWhispr app'), and the exact data returned ('ids, names and default flags'). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_notes and create_folder by naming the resource and its downstream purpose.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it to find the folder_id that list_notes, create_note and update_note take.' It provides clear context for invocation, though it does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives for cases where this tool should not be used.

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