list_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are ordered folders-first-then-by-name. But it says nothing about pagination behavior, permission requirements, or what happens with an invalid folderId, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 no filler; the core listing behavior and ordering are front-loaded, and the 'root' targeting hint follows. 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of what is listed and in what order. It is incomplete on pagination (pageToken is undocumented and there is no output schema to reveal whether more results exist), which an agent needs to page correctly.

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 67%; folderId and maxResults already document their defaults, and the description's 'root' hint largely duplicates the folderId schema default. pageToken remains unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the tool does not fully compensate for 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the direct children of a folder', with the scoping word 'direct' making the non-recursive semantics explicit and the ordering rule stated. It distinguishes itself from browse-style siblings like list_recent_files, though it never names a sibling directly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'Use "root" for My Drive' tells the agent how to target the top level, and 'direct children' implies this is the browsable, non-recursive listing. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_files or list_recent_files, and no mention of pagination prerequisites despite a pageToken parameter.

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