List folders

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds genuine context that results are permission-scoped ('you can see') and that each entry carries Space and path. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or result-size limits, so credit is partial rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the return-field hint is attached compactly. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with sibling alternatives.

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, parameterless-optional list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope and returned fields. Gaps remain around pagination, ordering, and how it differs from the drawing-list siblings, so it is complete only at a minimum-viable level.

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% and the single 'space' enum is documented as 'Only this Space.', so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description never mentions the space filter and adds nothing beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('folders') and adds scope ('you can see') plus the returned fields (Space and path). The resource distinction from list_drawings/search_drawings is clear from the name and description, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to use list_folders versus list_drawings or search_drawings, whether results are paginated, or whether the space filter is required for narrower results. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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