list_folder_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses hidden-item exclusion, root-path behavior, recursion output differences, and max_depth semantics. It does not mention permissions, sorting, or errors, but these are less critical for a read-only listing operation and an output schema 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses compact, line-oriented parameter examples. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral branches (immediate vs recursive, depth limiting, root path) and the hidden-items constraint. The only substantive omission is the meaning of the vault parameter, but the rest is complete enough for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining path, recursive, and max_depth with concrete output shapes and defaults. The only gap is the vault parameter, which is not described at all; otherwise this is strong parameter-level documentation.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('List the contents') and resource ('a vault folder'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('non-hidden items only'). This separates it from sibling tools like list_notes_tool and list_files_tool without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives practical parameter guidance: path='' is root, recursive=False vs True changes output shape, and max_depth controls depth. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_files_tool or list_attachments_tool, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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