list_script_folders

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation returns all script folders and includes hierarchy paths, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, response format, or any potential side effects, though 'list' implies a safe read 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 description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description provides the core information needed: it lists all script folders and highlights the hierarchy paths in the output. It lacks details on ordering or filtering, but those are not critical for a basic listing operation, making it sufficiently complete.

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 has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing needed since the schema is empty.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('script folders'), and adds meaningful scope ('all' and 'with their hierarchy paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts or list_datasource_type_folders.

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 description implies usage (when you need to list script folders), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or direct comparison with siblings, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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