acc_get_top_folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-trivial behavioral details: it returns folder URNs and reveals namingStandardIds when a naming standard is active. This gives the agent useful expectations about the output beyond the annotation.

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: the first states the core action, the second explains purpose and an additional output detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key verb.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and readOnlyHint=true. The description covers the primary purpose, usage context, and an extra return-value detail (namingStandardIds), which is sufficient for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema fully documents both hub_id and project_id (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the function: 'Get the root-level folders of a project' with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing root-level scope and positioning it as the entry point before listing/creating subfolders.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Start here to obtain folder URNs before listing or creating subfolders,' giving a clear use case. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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