Query folders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one behavioral detail: that 'detailed' includes child projects and subfolders, which is useful context. Still, it does not disclose pagination behavior, performance implications, or any other runtime traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 very short and front-loads the core action, with the useful detail about 'detailed' output placed second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff. The brevity is appropriate, though it sacrifices semantic completeness.

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?

Given six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but the tool's filtering, pagination, and search capabilities are not explained. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to query folders 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only addresses the 'output' parameter by mentioning 'detailed' mode. Parameters like cursor, search, folder_id, and folder_name are left wholly unexplained, forcing the agent to rely on names alone. This is insufficient for a six-parameter tool.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'OmniFocus folders', making the tool's primary purpose obvious. It also adds that 'detailed' output includes child projects and subfolders, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like query_projects or manage_folder, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_projects or query_tasks. The description implies it is for listing folders, but it does not mention filtering, pagination, or when the detailed output mode is preferred. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the parameter names alone.

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