canva_list_folder_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool returns conceptually but omits important behavioral traits such as pagination via the 'continuation' parameter, whether results are sorted or complete, and whether 'root' behaves differently from a normal folder ID. For a listing tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler: it opens with the verb, names the resource, and lists the content types. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and the description is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers its parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of key operational details such as pagination or the distinction between global item lists and folder-scoped listing. The description is adequate for a basic call but leaves a few gaps that could affect correct invocation, especially around pagination.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as the meaning of 'continuation' or the 'root' option.

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 clearly states the action ('Lista') and the resource ('el contenido dentro de una carpeta específica'), naming the content types (diseños, imgenes, subcarpetas). This distinguishes it from siblings like canva_list_designs and canva_list_folders, which list items globally rather than within a specific folder.

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 phrase 'dentro de una carpeta específica' implies when to use the tool (inspecting folder contents), but it does not explicitely state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as canva_list_designs or canva_list_folders. The usage context is reasonably clear but not fully articulated.

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