List a Canva folder

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that the operation is read-only and free, and by disclosing a functional limitation: Canva does not list videos here. It does not describe return structure or pagination behavior, but the safety profile is adequately covered.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose and key scoping values stated immediately. The fragmentary telegraphic style is efficient but slightly reduces readability. Every phrase carries information, so it avoids waste.

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 read-only list operation with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It covers folderId semantics, itemTypes, and the video limitation. It leaves pagination mechanics to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces folderId root/default/uploads meanings and itemTypes values, and adds the note that videos are excluded. Since it mostly repeats schema-provided semantics rather than adding substantial new parameter detail, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing the contents of a Canva folder. It scopes the operation with folderId values and itemTypes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_canva_designs or list_canva_brand_templates, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to inspect what a given Canva folder contains. The folderId options and itemTypes filter give useful context, and the note that videos are not listed is a helpful exclusion. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_canva_designs, list_canva_brand_templates, or search-like alternatives.

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