freshrss_list_folders

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

Annotations are none provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'List all...' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or require specific permissions. It also does not mention whether it returns empty lists or any error behavior. This is a minimal statement of function without behavioral context.

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, free of fluff, and directly states the function. It is appropriately front-loaded, with the action and resource stated immediately. There is no wasted wording, making it an exemplary concise description.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (likely defining the return structure), the description is arguably sufficient for a basic list operation. However, it lacks any mention of authentication requirements or behavioral notes like read-only status, which would be expected given the absence of annotations. The wording 'folders/categories/tags' is slightly ambiguous (are they the same?), but overall the description covers the core purpose. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description's 'List all' implicitly confirms that no filtering or arguments are needed, which aligns with the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add extra parameter details, and the baseline score stands.

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 (List) and the resource (all folders/categories/tags in FreshRSS). It distinguishes from siblings like freshrss_list_subscriptions by mentioning folders/categories/tags instead of subscriptions, but it does not explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and adequately specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or context where calling this tool would be inappropriate. With siblings like freshrss_get_unread_count and freshrss_get_articles, the lack of usage context is a gap.

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