wrike_get_folder_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the tree is recursive, includes the root folder, or how the 'project' filter affects results. This lack of behavioral detail could lead to incorrect expectations.

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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and resource. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it appropriately concise even though it sacrifices some detail.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what the tree structure contains, how it behaves in edge cases, or when to prefer this tool over related siblings. More context is needed for confident tool selection.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'starting from a folder', which only restates the folderId parameter. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource 'folder tree structure', which clearly differentiates it from flat list tools like wrike_list_folders and single-folder retrieval like wrike_get_folder. However, it does not explicitly mention these alternatives, so it falls just short of full 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context about hierarchy traversal, project filtering, or distinguishing use cases from sibling folder tools.

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