List folders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail 'in the workspace' and clarifies the purpose of folders, but it does not disclose return format, sorting, or pagination. This is acceptable given the annotations, but 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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it instantly scannable and effective.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks any mention of what the response contains (e.g., folder IDs, names) or any caveats, which would be expected given there is no output schema to clarify return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'folders', specifying that they group browser profiles in the workspace. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like list_profiles or list_proxies.

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 implies usage by saying what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_folder_profile_ids, list_profiles) or mention any prerequisites. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided.

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