canvas_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what data the call surfaces (path, parent, counts) and by pointing out that subfolder enumeration lives elsewhere. Pagination behavior is left to the schema rather than described, which keeps this from 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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the sibling hand-off. Every clause earns its place by either describing the payload or routing to another 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 simple three-parameter read with no output schema, the description gives an adequate picture of the return shape and the correct alternative for subfolders. A brief note on paging or on what the counts exclude would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so folder_id, page and raw are all documented inline, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning for those parameters, such as what 'raw' output looks like or how paging interacts with the folder listing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read one folder's details') and enumerates the returned fields (name, full path, parent folder, counts of files and subfolders). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling canvas_folders, which handles subfolder listing, so an agent can pick between them without opening 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 routes the agent clearly with 'List its subfolders with canvas_folders (context_type folder)', a concrete usage context and a named alternative. What it lacks is an explicit when-not statement or a note on when to prefer canvas_folders for the folder itself.

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