list_folders (unavailable — configuration error)

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and the text does not contradict that, but it discloses nothing about the tool's actual behavior — no return shape, pagination, or auth flow for the tool. It describes the server's failed state, not the operation.

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 text is readable and front-loaded, but every sentence is about an environment failure and none earns its place as a tool definition. It is well-organized for an error message and inappropriate as a description.

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, an agent still needs to know what gets listed. The description supplies none of that, leaving the definition unusable for tool selection.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-level information is missing or needed.

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 never states what list_folders does. It is an MCP startup-failure message about a missing Feedly token, so an agent cannot tell that this tool lists folders, nor distinguish it from list_feeds or unread_counts.

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 only guidance is operational ('run feedly-mcp doctor', 'do not fetch the news another way'), which concerns fixing a local configuration problem rather than when to select this tool versus its siblings. No use context for the tool itself is given.

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