scan_folder_structure

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable context beyond them: it explains the recursive scan nature, the semantics of `allowed` and `reason` (why files are inaccessible due to extension/size limits), and the response structure including `truncated` for item count limits. This enriches the agent's understanding of tool behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs: main action, then allowed/reason explanation, then Returns block, then Examples. It is somewhat lengthy (about 10 lines) but every sentence adds value, including the heuristic about `allowed` and the example usage. It front-loads the core purpose and doesn't waste words, though it could be slightly tighter by merging some explanatory sentences.

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 tool has no parameters, a rich output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), and the description already covers the return fields, the tool is completely specified. It explains the `allowed`/`reason` semantics that are crucial for agent decision-making, mentions the `truncated` field, and provides usage examples. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly focuses on output semantics. Since schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true with no props), no additional parameter documentation is required. The description effectively explains the return structure, which is the relevant semantic content.

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 recursively scans a fixed target folder and returns the file structure. It uses a specific verb ('훑어' - scans) and resource ('대상 폴더'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it is the 'starting point of folder analysis' and giving a concrete example of when not to use it (when you already know the target file and need original text, use read_document_chunk).

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('folder analysis starting point'), explains the meaning of the `allowed` flag in terms of downstream tool accessibility, and gives a clear example of when to use an alternative (read_document_chunk when the target file is known). This effectively routes the agent to the correct sibling tool.

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