folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing that sync timestamps and last-error state are included, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering across accounts.

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 no filler. It is perhaps slightly dense with four enumerated items, but every clause carries information about the return payload.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers the shape of the returned data reasonably well. It stops short of explaining ordering, nesting of folders under accounts, or how errors are represented, which an agent would still have to discover.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies this is an unfiltered top-level listing with no scoping arguments to worry about.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the resources returned: accounts, folders, index tags, plus each account's last sync and last error. That is clear enough to know what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate against siblings like status or files, and the tool name 'folders' understates that accounts are the primary resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as status (which may also report sync state) or files. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the resource list.

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