List note folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns an empty array on installs that predate note folders, which is a valuable edge case. It also hints at the nested/hierarchical nature of the data. Though it doesn't cover sorting or performance, for a straightforward list operation this is adequate and transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the subject and data fields. It then provides usage context and an edge case. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the data returned (fields and nesting), the usage context, and a potential empty result scenario. It could clarify the exact structure (e.g., flat list vs. nested tree) or mention ordering, but for a list tool it is sufficiently informative.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent any parameter explanations. It remains consistent with the empty 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 clearly states it lists note folders, the specific resource and verb. It differentiates itself from siblings by specifying 'Nested note folders' and listing the data fields (uuid, name, parentUuid, path, color). It also indicates integration with list_notes, which helps identify its role among the many list 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use with list_notes when organizing or filtering by folder.' This provides clear context. It also notes behavior on older installs, implying it may not be applicable there. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple parameterless tool.

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