list_folder_with_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes output format (tree with ├── and └──), nesting levels, and that it works with root and nested structures. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list folders'.

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 well-structured with sections for features, output format, and returns. It is somewhat verbose (repeats 'tree structure'), but the organization aids readability. Could be trimmed slightly.

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 an output schema exists, the description explains the output format in detail. It covers what the tool does and key features. For a read-only listing tool, it is 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's behavior, which is not parameter-dependent.

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 tool lists the complete folder structure in a hierarchical tree format. The name itself is descriptive, and the description emphasizes the tree visualisation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_folder' which likely shows a single folder.

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 describes features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for viewing hierarchy, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for individual folder details).

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