Matter folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read operation and it discloses that documents can optionally be included, but it says nothing about permissions, what happens when neither matter_id nor parent_id is supplied, pagination, or defaults for limit.

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 sentence that leads with the core action and scope before the purpose clause. Every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally cover return shape and the behavior when optional scope parameters are omitted. It covers the basic intent adequately for a list tool but leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

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 50%: parent_id and include_documents are documented in the schema, while matter_id and limit are not. The description conceptually maps three parameters ('in a matter' = matter_id, 'under a given folder' = parent_id, 'optionally documents' = include_documents), but adds no detail on limit or defaults, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the folders') and clarifies scope ('in a matter or under a given folder'), which distinguishes it from clio_folder_create and the document tools. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 trailing clause 'to find out where to store a document' gives a concrete use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, it names no alternative tool (e.g., clio_document_search) and gives no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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