List asset folders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: Wiki.js returns one level at a time, forcing repeated calls for deep trees. It also clarifies the special root sentinel (folder 0), which is not obvious from annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the one-level-at-a-time caveat is placed right after, earning its place as practical guidance.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is listed, the root convention, and the traversal behavior. No critical operational detail 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes parent_folder_id including the default root behavior. The description repeats 'Folder 0 is the root' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') on a specific resource ('folders directly under an asset folder') and clarifies scope with root semantics. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_assets or create_asset_folder, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: it returns only immediate children, and 'a deep tree needs one call per level' tells the agent how to navigate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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