list_folders

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: return shape (flat list), hierarchy fields (parentId, path, depth), and the semantic model (folders can nest folders/suites; suites are leaf nodes). This meaningfully informs expected behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 tightly written sentences: verb/resource first, usage purpose second, return-shape and semantics third. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content. The hierarchy detail is packed efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (hierarchical data, no output schema), the description conveys the key matters: what is returned, the folder/suite nesting rule, and why an agent needs it. It doesn't explain how includeStats/indexDeleted alter results, or pagination/result limits, but the read-only/idempotent safety is covered by annotations and the primary invocation contract is clear enough.

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% — all three parameters (projectId, includeStats, includeDeleted) already have descriptions and defaults in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, such as how includeStats affects output or how includeDeleted interacts with hierarchy reporting.

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?

Description states a specific verb (list) and resource (all folders and suites for a project), which clearly differentiates it from the singular get_folder sibling. It also clarifies the folder/suite relationship, adding precision beyond just 'list folders'. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly distinguish from list_test_cases or list_test_collections, but the 'folders and suites' scope is unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Call this to get folder IDs needed for create_test_case.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g., get_folder for a single folder, list_projects for project lookup), so it falls short of a full 5.

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