get_tools_by_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of listing, without mentioning side effects (likely read-only), ordering, pagination, or what 'concise' means in terms of tool selection. There is no statement about permissions or return format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. However, the second sentence could be integrated more naturally, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single ambiguous parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return format, the meaning of 'concise tools', or any constraints on folder usage. An agent would struggle to know exactly what this tool returns and how to structure the input correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the 'folder' parameter. It mentions 'one folder' and 'parent folder' but does not clarify whether the value is a path, ID, or display name, nor does it define the folder hierarchy. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's existence.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('concise tools') scoped to a single folder, which differentiates it from broader tools like get_tools_list or search tools. However, the term 'concise tools' is ambiguous—it likely means tools with short descriptions or a filtered subset—which slightly undermines precision.

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 provides a single usage hint ('Use a parent folder to inspect its subfolders') which implies a traversal pattern, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_tools_search or get_tools_list. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving some inference required.

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