List Folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the API limitation around project_id discovery, the default 10-per-page behavior, and the critical silent truncation of results, which an agent must know to avoid missing data.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by tightly scoped paragraphs on required context and pagination. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers all the essential behavioral and usage context an agent needs: required parameter, discovery fallback, filtering options, and pagination pitfalls. Nothing critical appears missing.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It explains project_id's necessity and discovery path, name and parent_folder_id as filters, and take/skip for pagination, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List folders within a project') and names the resource and available filters, making the purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling tools by scoping to folders and noting optional filtering by parent folder or name.

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 provides clear practical guidance: project_id is required, how to discover it if unknown, and when to increase take or use skip. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name an alternative listing tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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