list_folders

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 meets it: it discloses the default return set, the status filter semantics, the 200-result cap, and the exact returned fields including the full-path separator (▸). This goes well beyond what the input schema alone conveys.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then default behavior, filter option, then output shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (default scope, status values) are front-loaded ahead of the return-field detail.

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 definition is complete enough for practical use: parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating returned fields (id, name, full path, parentId, status). Minor omissions — result ordering and behavior beyond the cap — keep it from a perfect score.

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 100% — both limit and filter already have thorough schema descriptions including defaults and the exclusiveMinimum constraint. The tool description restates the default (200) and the status enum values rather than adding new parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List folders in OmniFocus') and immediately clarifies scope by stating the default return set (all active and dropped folders). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_folder (single retrieval) and list_projects/list_tasks/list_tags (different resources).

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 explains default vs. filtered behavior well enough for an agent to decide whether to pass a status filter, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_folder or list_projects. Usage context is implied through the resource name and default-behavior detail, with no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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