list_article_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape (hierarchical view, article counts) and pagination parameters, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention behavior on empty results, sorting order, or rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose sentence, return summary, cross-tool usage note, and a clear Args list. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 paginated list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return nature, and parameter semantics. It also includes a usage cross-reference. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty folders or ordering, but those are not critical given the output schema and simplicity.

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 input schema only shows integer types and defaults, with 0% coverage. The description compensates by defining each parameter: 'skip: Pagination offset (default: 0)' and 'take: Number of records to return (default: 200).' This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'List all knowledge base article folders in a tree structure.' It identifies the resource (knowledge base article folders) and output format (tree hierarchy with article counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles, which lists articles rather than folder structure.

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 provides practical usage context: 'Use the folder 'name' field to filter articles by folder in list_articles.' This tells the agent how to combine this tool with a sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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