iaas_get_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the organizational scoping ("current organization") and the underlying route; it says nothing about pagination behavior, page size defaults, or result volume for what is clearly a collection endpoint.

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 very short lines with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. The first line ("Get folders") is redundant with the second and the raw REST route adds little for an agent, but overall it is lean.

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 an 8-parameter collection endpoint with no output schema, an agent still lacks return-shape expectations, default page size, and whether the cloud-account/region filters are optional refinements. Annotations cover safety, so the description is workable but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 `top`, `skip`, `count`, `filter`, `select`, `apiVersion`, `cloudAccountId` and `externalRegionId` are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them — notably it never hints that results can be narrowed by cloud account or external region, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ("Get all folders") plus a scope ("within the current organization"), which is more than a restatement of the name. No sibling tool in the list covers folders, so the resource alone distinguishes it, but the description does no explicit routing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The tricky question for this endpoint — folders belonging to which cloud account/region, and whether the vCenter-scoped filters should be used — is left entirely implicit.

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