list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond structured data: full paths output, non-unique folder names, and the rejection of ambiguous bare names rather than guessing. Strong complementary context.

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 paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose: primary listing semantics, relational guidance with create_folder/create_note, and the ambiguity caveat. Slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place — the ambiguity explanation is genuinely important. Well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 0-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it covers what's returned (paths, one per line), the non-uniqueness caveat, and downstream usage guidance. An output schema exists which likely documents the path list format further, reducing the need for the description to do more.

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 0 parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden. Per rubric, 0 params warrants baseline 4. The description's focus on output path format adds value since there are no inputs to explain.

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 'List the folders a note can be filed into, as full paths, one per line' — a specific verb (list) plus specific resource (folders for note filing) with output format detail. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_folder and search_note_text by its specific purpose of enumerating what create_note can target.

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 explicitly explains when to call this tool: before create_note, rather than guessing a folder name. It also names direct alternatives (create_folder for non-listed folders) and explains the ambiguity-handling behavior clearly. This is excellent guidance with explicit exclusions.

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