List IT Glue Document Folders

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns only summary metadata (name, parent folder, document count) and explains filter matching and parent_id null meaning. This provides useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output summary, use case, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and a read-only list tool with pagination and output format, the description covers purpose, output, and key parameter behaviors. Sorting and response_format are documented in the schema; pagination details are not repeated but are in schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 descriptions cover all parameters. The description adds extra context for filter_name (partial, case-insensitive match) and parent_id (folder's URL number, null for top-level), enhancing the schema's information.

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 that it lists document folders in an organization, including nested folders. It specifies the return is summary metadata, and differentiates from sibling list tools by focusing on 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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool to discover folder IDs for itglue_create_document or to browse the document tree. It explains filter_name and parent_id behavior but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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