structure_listFolders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (rowId, depth, name/summary, folderId), but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as ordering, filtering, or handling of empty structures. Given the annotations cover the main risks, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 one concise sentence plus a short usage clause. It front-loads the verb and resource, lists essential output fields, and includes a practical pointer to another tool—all without wasted words.

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 simple tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does, lists the output fields, and gives usage context. However, it does not specify whether folders are returned at all levels or only top-level, and it doesn't describe the structure hierarchy in detail. Still adequate for its simplicity.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter structureId (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions folderName and underRowId, but these are output fields, not parameters. Thus it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 action ('List folders') and the resource ('Tempo Structure'), and additionally lists the output fields (rowId, depth, name/summary, folderId). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on folders within a structure, while other tools like structure_list or structure_getForest serve different purposes. The mention of 'Use before structure_addIssues' further clarifies its role.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use before structure_addIssues to pick underRowId or folderName.' This provides a clear context and a concrete next step. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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