list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (IDs, names, order, rules), but says nothing about result size, ordering guarantees, or whether all folders are returned at once — relevant gaps for a listing tool flagged as open-world.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the parameter behavior. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how the filter works, which is enough to call it correctly. It could be stronger by mentioning result volume or whether folders are returned in the stated order reliably.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no title-level documentation beyond its name. The description compensates well by stating it is optional, case-insensitive, and a substring match rather than an exact match — precisely the semantics an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('folder') plus the returned attributes (IDs, names, order, rules), so an agent knows exactly what the call yields. No sibling tool in the list deals with folders, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description also doesn't name a counterpart.

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?

'Optional case-insensitive name substring' implies the call can be used as either a full listing or a filtered lookup, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus any other discovery path, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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