list_document_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does add meaningful context: API key authentication, JWT fallback, configuration via ITGLUE_JWT or X-ITGlue-JWT header, and the 2026 tenant rollout condition. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but the most operationally relevant quirks are surfaced.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler; the first states the core function, and the next two add necessary authentication and availability context. The second sentence is slightly dense, but every part 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description covers purpose, return shape, authentication fallback, and rollout availability. It is missing explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools and some pagination details, but these are relatively minor for this operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only output context ('names and IDs') and does not provide additional meaning for name, page_size, page_number, or organization_id beyond what is in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('document folders'), and a scope ('for an organization'), while also mentioning the output ('names and IDs'). It is clear and distinct, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_document_sections, leaving the differentiation to the resource name.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve document folder names and IDs for an organization when the Document Folders resource is available. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_document_sections or search_documents. The tenant-rollout caveat is an availability condition, not a selection guideline.

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