folders_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only status, absence of side effects, no auth requirement, no rate limits, and the specific failure mode ('Throws if project_id references an unknown project'). It also describes the return payload shape and the relative-vs-base_path semantics, which is behavior an agent needs before chaining into files_create.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then return contract, then usage routing. No filler, and each clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape ({folders, base_path}) and the crucial relative-path caveat, plus error behavior and usage routing. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents that null/omitted project_id lists KB folders, so the description largely restates it. It adds only the error condition for an unknown project id, which is more behavioral than parametric. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('folder paths') with explicit scope ('under a project root or the Knowledge Base when project_id is null/omitted'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like folders_create, folders_delete, and files_list.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases ('discover where to drop a new file via files_create's folder argument' and 'navigate vault structure') and routes creation to the alternative tool: 'to actually create one use folders_create.' This is a textbook when-to-use plus alternative pointer.

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