list_folders

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', matching the readOnlyHint annotation. It details what the tool returns (writability, protected reason, note count, guidance files) and how writable flag aligns with commit_note, providing full behavioral transparency beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding value. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by details.

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 simple input schema (2 optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool retrieves (hierarchy, writability, counts, guidance) and its read-only nature, making it complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: root is repo-relative ('' = vault root), depth is levels to descend, and it explains how to use root when truncated is true, offering context beyond schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: discovering folder taxonomy and writable locations. It specifies details like child folders under root, depth levels, writability, protected reasons, and note counts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or read_note.

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 advises using it 'before placing a note' and mentions narrowing root when truncated is true. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear and actionable.

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