fetch_component_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'lists' folders without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination details), leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions parameters. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured for its brevity.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output, which are critical for a tool with undocumented inputs and no structured context.

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 must compensate but only names parameters ('per_page', 'page') without explaining their semantics (e.g., what 'per_page' means, default values, constraints). This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('component folders'), which gives a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all folders, paginated results) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_components' or 'fetch_asset_folders', making it somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions optional parameters but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like 'fetch_components', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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