apple_notes_list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only:' at the front of the description is largely redundant. The genuine added value is disclosing the return shape (folder IDs and names) and the account-scoping behavior; nothing is said about pagination or result ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the safety qualifier and the resource/return fields come first. Appropriate size for a simple list tool.

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 no output schema, the description's mention of folder IDs and names usefully covers the return shape, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool it omits limit/offset behavior and how to obtain an accountId, which an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (limit, offset, accountId) are undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates for accountId ('optionally within one account') but says nothing about limit/offset, defaults, or pagination semantics, leaving two of three params opaque.

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 and resource ('list Notes folder IDs and names') and even names the return fields, which cleanly separates it from apple_notes_list (notes) and apple_notes_list_accounts. It stops short of naming any sibling as an alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Optionally within one account' hints at when to supply accountId, which is useful routing context, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to related tools such as apple_notes_list_accounts for discovering account IDs. Usage is only implied.

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