List folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — a paid-plan entitlement and the required pre-check via get_status. It stops short of disclosing ordering, pagination, or whether shared/inherited folders are included, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking prerequisite, then the resource, then the cross-reference to list_videos. The parenthetical plan-check is slightly dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words on the returned fields and the null-parent convention, plus the plan gate. Missing only ordering/pagination and whether the result is flat or a tree, which would matter for an agent building a hierarchy from parentId.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description could add. Instead it usefully documents the response shape (parentId null at top level), which compensates for the absent output 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The user's folders on recordful.app') and enumerates the returned fields (folderId, name, parentId, shared), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also scopes the data to the user's own folders rather than a workspace-wide set, which is the kind of distinction that separates it from list_recordings/list_videos.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite gate: 'Recordful Pro only (check get_status recorder.account.plan first)', which tells the agent to verify the plan before calling. It also points to list_videos for per-video folder association, but does not say when to prefer create_folder or move_videos, nor any when-not condition.

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