list_audio_subfolders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the cost profile (fast, cheap, no duration/BPM/key parsing, no size stat) and the return shape (directory names plus a cheap audio-file count per folder). It omits error/edge behavior (e.g., nonexistent path, permission issues), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when/how guidance is front-loaded ahead of the Args block, and the format example folders ('Footsteps/', 'Ambience/Wind/') usefully ground the concept. It is slightly verbose for a two-parameter listing tool, but every sentence contributes information rather than filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, why it is cheap, when to prefer it, and what both parameters mean. Error handling and failure modes for an invalid `path` are the only notable omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: `path` is defined as an absolute folder path to list under, and `max_depth` is explained with its unit of meaning ('1 = immediate children of `path` only') plus its default of 2. Both parameters are fully specified, including the level semantics the schema does not express.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list the subfolder structure under a folder) and immediately delimits scope: directory names and an audio-file count, no per-file metadata work. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling scan_audio_folder, so an agent can distinguish the two without reading either schema.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use this BEFORE scan_audio_folder on a large library') and the rationale (see the shape first, then point scan_audio_folder's `path` at the specific subfolder). The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both named.

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