folder_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'capped' (a behavioral limitation), which is useful, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format. For a read-only list operation, more detail would be helpful, yet the cap adds some value.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line purpose and a clear argument explanation. Every word contributes, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 with one optional parameter, but the description does not specify the return format or what folder information is included. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be beneficial, though the current description is minimally viable for a list 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?

The description adds meaning to the 'kind' parameter by specifying valid values (EventFolder | AssetFolder) and explaining omission behavior, which is not present in the schema (no enum or parameter description). This adequately compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool lists folders in the project browser and mentions a 'capped' limit. It is specific to folders and distinguishes from generic list tools like utility_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It describes an optional filter for EventFolder or AssetFolder and explains that omitting gets all, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like utility_list, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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