list_common_info_folders

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'get list' with no details about idempotency, authentication requirements, pagination, or order. For a simple tool this is minimal, but it lacks any behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not specify the structure of the returned list (e.g., folder names or IDs), which could leave some ambiguity. However, for a basic list operation, it is passable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add parameter info because none exist, and it does not need to compensate.

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 'Get a list of common information folders' (共通情報フォルダ一覧を取得する), specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'common information folders'. Among sibling tools like list_common_infos (which likely retrieves contents) and create_friend_info_folder, this tool is distinctly for listing folders.

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 versus alternatives like list_common_infos. Usage is implied: if you need the list of folders, use this. However, no when-not or context is provided, so it scores at the 'implied usage' level.

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