list_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a read operation (list), which is implied but not explicitly stated as read-only. It mentions the path parameter structure and default, but no behavioral details like pagination, recursion depth, or permissions needed. For a simple read tool, the default behavior hints at root listing, which is adequate but not 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?

The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose. The Args section is a typical format. Every part adds value. Minor point: could be slightly more streamlined by removing redundant 'Args:' header if not needed, but overall concise.

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 output schema exists (not shown but noted), return values are covered elsewhere. The tool is simple with one parameter, but lacks any guidance on whether folders are recursively listed or only direct contents, and no mention of error cases (e.g., invalid path). The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for robust agent operation.

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 coverage is 0% with only one parameter (path). The description adds the key meaning: path is an EVENG folder path like '/' or '/User1/Folder 1', with a default of '/'. This provides critical context beyond the bare schema definition, especially since the default is documented. It is sufficient given the single parameter.

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 tool lists folders and labs contained in an EVENG folder, with a specific verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_labs (which lists labs from a broader context) and add_folder, delete_folder (which are mutating). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_labs beyond the folders vs. labs scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_labs or get_lab. The description and sibling list don't clarify that list_folder specifically scopes to the contents of a folder path, while list_labs may list labs across all folders. No when-not-to-use or context provided.

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