storage_get_subfolders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares read safety, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides. It does not disclose whether subfolders are listed recursively or only immediate children, whether hidden folders are included, or any ordering behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action and scope with no filler or redundant information.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and a fully documented parameter, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about whether the listing is recursive or direct, and it does not differentiate from the similarly named media_pool_get_subfolders, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single volume_path parameter with a clear description and example. The schema carries the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 'List subfolders inside a media storage path' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (subfolders) with clear scoping to media storage. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_get_files and media_pool_get_subfolders.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like media_pool_get_subfolders or storage_get_files. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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