list_storage_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, it does not mention pagination behavior, whether it lists all folders recursively or only top-level ones, ordering, or the meaning of parent_id. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 very concise at three words, with no redundant sentences or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is somewhat under-specified. The brevity is effective for a simple list operation, but it lacks important details found in better descriptions.

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 that the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for correct invocation. It does not explain return values, pagination defaults, hierarchy behavior, or how it relates to the similar get_storage_folders_tree tool. This is a clear gap for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The description adds no information about the parameters (page, per_page, parent_id). Schema coverage is 67%, with parent_id lacking a description, and the tool description does not compensate for this gap or clarify the role of each 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 'List storage folders' states a clear action ('list') and resource ('storage folders'), effectively conveying the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_storage_folders_tree', leaving ambiguity about whether it returns a flat list or handles hierarchy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_storage_folders_tree or create_storage_folder. It does not mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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