search_folders_resources

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, and it discloses nothing. It does not mention pagination (despite limit/offset params), sorting behaviour, result shape, or any auth/scope requirements.

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?

Six characters contain no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded intent statement an agent can act on.

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?

A five-parameter search tool with a single enum, no output schema, and no annotations needs substantial description to be callable correctly. This provides none of it, so the definition is inadequate for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% — just the required 'query' parameter has a description ('검색어'). The other four parameters (sort, limit, order, offset) are undocumented in both schema and description, and the description itself adds zero parameter meaning.

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 '폴더 검색' is a direct restatement of the tool name (search_folders_resources) in Korean — essentially a tautology. It conveys the verb and resource but adds no scope, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling search_files_resources.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternative search_files_resources. The agent must infer from the name alone that this searches folders rather than files.

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