apidog_list_api_detail_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any authorization requirements or return-behavior details. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name, but the verb is unambiguous enough to infer safety.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. No wasted words, and the 'for endpoint placement reference' qualifier adds purposeful context.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is terse and leaves out important context like what fields are returned, whether the list is paginated, or how 'API detail folders' differ from other folder types. It is adequate for a basic list tool but lacks completeness.

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 both parameters (branchId, projectId) are already documented in the schema with their fallback behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists 'API detail folders' and indicates its purpose 'for endpoint placement reference'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from sibling tools like list_modules or list_api_tree, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from similar list tools.

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 phrase 'for endpoint placement reference' provides some usage context (e.g., when you need to decide where to place an endpoint). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other list tools like list_api_tree or list_modules, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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