List Folders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavioral context: the returned hierarchy uses parentFolderId, a single folder can be retrieved with its rowVersion (which feeds into update_folder), and a project context prerequisite exists. It doesn't describe the full response shape, but for a read-only listing tool the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by hierarchical structure, then parameter-specific behavior and prerequisite. Every sentence 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 read-only, 3-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, hierarchy semantics, folderId behavior, and the set_context prerequisite. It does not describe versionId's behavior in prose, but the schema already covers that, and the key response elements (parentFolderId, rowVersion) are mentioned.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds behavioral semantics beyond the schema, particularly for folderId (returns a single folder) and the implication of versionId for version filtering. It also links folderId output to rowVersion usage in update_folder, which enriches the agent's understanding.

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 folder structure of an API specification.' It further clarifies the hierarchical organization via parentFolderId, and the tool is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_test_folders and list_specs by focusing on folders within an API specification. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Gives clear usage context, including how to scope the call ('Pass folderId to get just that one') and a prerequisite ('Requires project context (call set_context first)'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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