list_binder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hierarchical tree output, use of emojis for folders/documents, and the 'Include in Compile' marker, which is valuable context. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but as a read-only list operation, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the key purpose is stated in the opening sentence.

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?

The tool has a simple input (one optional parameter) and an output schema, and the description provides complete coverage of the tool's behavior, including return format and optional filtering. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the folder_path parameter's format with an example, its optionality, and the behavior when omitted. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('binder structure of the Scrivener project'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like read_document and search_project. The reference to Scrivener's binder sidebar reinforces the unique purpose.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to view binder structure) and explains the optional folder_path parameter, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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