notes_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a listing/read operation and that account_id/account_name act as optional filters, but it does not describe default behavior when no parameters are given, output format, or behavior when both account_id and account_name are supplied.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and every phrase carries meaning, from the resource type to the optional scoping behavior.

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 with no required parameters, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: it names the operation, the resource, and the optional filters. It falls slightly short of full completeness by omitting any note about return shape or edge cases, but those are minor for this tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does so by stating they are optional scoping mechanisms, which is useful. Still, it leaves gaps around exact-match behavior, value formats, and what happens if both parameters are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('folders across Apple Notes'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like notes_list_accounts and notes_list_notes by naming the distinct resource type.

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 intended use is implied clearly: use this tool when you need to list folders in Apple Notes, optionally scoping by account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the agent must infer the distinction from sibling tool names rather than from guidance.

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