list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the scope is the whole account (no folder-level filtering), which is useful, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing page/limit parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list operation. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than maximally concise-with-value.

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 low-complexity read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. Still, the account-wide scope combined with paginated parameters without any return/pagination guidance leaves a small gap an agent would have to discover empirically.

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% and both parameters (page, limit) are documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or ordering details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all folders') with account-wide scope, so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling list tools (list_renders, list_uploads, list_fonts) or from folder mutations like create_folder/delete_folder/update_folder beyond the obvious verb.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. With three sibling folder tools present, the agent must infer on its own that this is the read-only enumeration path.

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