list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool lists folders and note counts but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether the structure is recursive, or how results are ordered or paginated. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a directory-listing operation.

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 a single concise sentence that states the action and key output detail (note counts). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no wasted words, making it appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It tells the agent what it does but does not specify the return format, whether the parentFolder filter is absolute or relative, or any behavioral details. While adequate for a basic list operation, gaps remain in output expectations and filter semantics.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter parentFolder, including an example. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 and directory structure with note counts. It specifies a verb and resource, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_vault_tree, which likely also exposes directory structure, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vault_tree or search_vault. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent cannot infer when to choose this tool over a sibling without additional context.

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