acc_list_folder

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful context about the returned contents (tip-version info, process/review state, naming conformingStatus), but does not mention pagination behavior or hidden entries, which are left to the schema.

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?

Single sentence leads with the action and lists specific output details. No wasted words, perfectly sized.

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?

With an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description provides sufficient detail about what is returned. However, it does not explicitly note that results are paginated or that hidden entries are excluded unless include_hidden is set, which are important for invocation. Overall adequate.

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?

Description does not add meaning to any parameters. Schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, but missing descriptions for page_limit and page_number are left to defaults/ranges. The description does not compensate for these gaps or clarify parameter usage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'contents of a folder', and details what is included (subfolders, files, tip-version info). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like acc_get_item or acc_search_folder.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does; there is no mention of when to prefer this over acc_search_folder or acc_list_item_versions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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