list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the valuable note that 'Folders hold no secret material,' which sets expectations about content sensitivity, and it specifies the returned fields. It doesn't describe pagination or ordering, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second provides a practical usage pointer. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns, that it's safe (no secrets), and how to chain it with a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty properties), there is nothing to document. The description adds value by explaining how the output (folder ids) can be used with list_passwords, which is a semantic clarification beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 states a specific verb (List), resource (folders), and enumerates the returned fields (id, label, parent folder id, timestamps). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_passwords (which lists passwords) and get_folder (which retrieves a single folder) by indicating scope as 'all folders'. No ambiguity.

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?

It provides a direct cross-tool usage hint: 'Use a folder id with list_passwords to filter.' This tells the agent how to apply the output. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with get_folder, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context.

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