list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all folders' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., recursive listing). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'List all folders', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 the complexity of listing operations (which often involve permissions, pagination, or filtering) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like return format, error handling, or how 'all' is defined, leaving gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as no additional semantic information is needed beyond the schema.

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 'List all folders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all folders in what context?) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_folder_by_uid' or 'search_dashboards', which might also involve folder operations. It avoids tautology but remains 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'list_folders' over 'get_folder_by_uid' for specific folder retrieval. Without such information, usage is implied but not explicit.

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