folder.get_all_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the return shape, including nested 'folders' and 'dashboards' keys and the error dict on failure, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: one explanatory sentence, one wrapping-context sentence, and a compact return-type breakdown. Every sentence adds information, and the main purpose is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 zero-parameter, read-only convenience tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, how the hierarchy is organized, and what the failure shape looks like. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and to interpret its result.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the baseline rule, a score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full folder tree.' It further clarifies the returned nested hierarchy and names the underlying convenience wrapper, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling folder_get_folder_id, which targets a specific 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 clearly states this is the tool for retrieving the complete folder tree and identifies it as a convenience wrapper for get_folders("tree"), which implies the common use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to folder_get_folder_id, but the usage context is clear enough.

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