Get Folder Icon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes the read-only nature ('Read'), indicates the null return case, and labels the tool as 'Experimental'. For a simple read operation, this is fairly transparent, though it could mention that no side effects occur.

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 consists of two short sentences, stating the purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word is efficient with no fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It only says 'Returns null when none is set', not specifying the icon format (e.g., URL, string). It also omits error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool with optional workspaceId, it is minimally adequate.

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 50% as only folderId has a description. The description adds meaning by stating 'Read the current sidebar icon', which contextualizes folderId, but workspaceId remains undocumented. The description does not elaborate on workspaceId's purpose, leaving a gap.

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 'Read the current sidebar icon of an organize folder', specifying both the verb (read) and the resource (folder icon). This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like update_folder_icon (write) and get_doc_icon (different resource).

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 implies usage for reading a folder icon and notes that null is returned when not set, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to related tools (e.g., update_folder_icon, get_doc_icon). No alternatives are named.

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