granola_folders_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: the listing is flat rather than nested, hierarchy must be reassembled via parent_folder_id, and results are alphabetically sorted. It stops short of describing pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the scope and ordering come first, then the structural caveat, then the practical use case. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so well by disclosing the flat list plus parent_folder_id reassembly. Pagination continuation via cursor is left to the schema, which is a minor gap for a 2-param list tool.

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 100% and both parameters (cursor, pageSize) are documented in the schema, including the server's default page size of 10. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the folders'), plus a real scope constraint ('this key can reach') and ordering ('sorted alphabetically'). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, but the framing around note listings and webhook deliveries implicitly separates it from those tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find the folder_id that narrows a note listing or a webhook endpoint's deliveries. That is a concrete downstream purpose, though it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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