set_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond those: recursive traversal, supported-format indexing, and explicit skip rules for hidden folders and node_modules/.venv. Consistent with annotations — no contradiction.

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 Korean sentences with zero waste. The critical call-order instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior rules and scope restriction. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Complete for a 1-parameter setup tool: purpose, call order, skip rules, and global scope are all covered. An output schema exists (present), so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for invalid/nonexistent paths, but this is acceptable given the schema and annotation coverage.

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% — the schema already documents 'folder' as an absolute path with a concrete example. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The scope-restriction note is contextual, not parametric.

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: '분석할 문서 폴더를 지정하고 전체를 스캔한다' (designates the document folder and scans it all), plus the recursive indexing scope. It is clearly the setup/initialization tool among its siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not. Each sibling (list_documents, extract_content, etc.) is implicitly distinguished as a post-setup tool.

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?

Gives explicit call-order guidance: '가장 먼저 호출해야 한다' (must be called first) and states that all subsequent tools operate only within this folder. This tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use refresh instead), so it falls short of 5.

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