tc_list_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context: project_id is used to resolve the region, folder_id omission triggers root listing, and the return payload shape is disclosed, including item types and 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short Args section, and a Returns block with a concrete JSON example. Every sentence adds value and no extraneous information is present.

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 a simple read-only list operation with two parameters and an output schema; the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and how to navigate from results. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains project_id's role in region resolution and folder_id's role including the optional/root behavior, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List the contents (subfolders and files) of one folder.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like tc_folder_tree or tc_get_file by focusing on listing a single folder's immediate children, and it clarifies that omitting folder_id returns the root 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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: list a single folder's contents, and provides guidance to 'Use item ids to descend into subfolders or fetch file details.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like tc_folder_tree for full-tree traversal, but the one-folder scope is unambiguous.

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