get-routine-folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the response is paginated and includes both default and custom folders, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, or pagination metadata format. It adds some value beyond the tool name but is not rich.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get a paginated list...') and adds a brief use case. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately 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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the basic return type ('list of your routine folders') and mentions pagination. However, with no output schema and no annotation, it should ideally describe the response structure or parameter effects. The absence of parameter explanations and any mention of response shape (e.g., whether it includes total count) leaves notable gaps.

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 input schema has two parameters (page, pageSize) with defaults and bounds, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions them. The word 'paginated' hints at the presence of pagination controls but does not explain which parameter controls what. The description clearly fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool gets a 'paginated list of your routine folders' and specifies scope by 'including both default and custom folders.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-routine-folder (singular) and get-routines (list of routines, not folders).

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 provides a general use case ('useful for organizing and browsing your workout routines') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-routine-folder or get-routines. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names, 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.