apidog_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only analysis (no side effects) and adds concrete details about what it returns: counts, tree, and unfoldered endpoints. However, it does not disclose response format or any prerequisites beyond the schema.

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, compact sentence that leads with the main verb and includes the most valuable detail (outputs). No wasted words or 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview. It might be slightly more explicit about what 'counts' refers to (e.g., endpoints per folder), but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity and scope.

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%, with 'module' and 'project' fully described. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, 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 action ('Analyze folder structure') and the resource ('an Apidog module'), and specifies expected outputs ('counts, tree, unfoldered endpoints'). This differentiates it from siblings like apidog_list (which likely lists modules/endpoints) and apidog_analyze (generic analysis).

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 implies usage when one needs folder structure details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apidog_list or apidog_analyze. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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