uipath_get_folder_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what data is returned (counts) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing explicit is mentioned, leaving a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and concrete details. The second sentence provides a quick use case without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for an API tool description.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description lists the key return components (job counts by state, queue count, release count, robot count) and a use case, making it fairly complete for a low-complexity tool (single parameter). It could be improved by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a summary object) or any prerequisites, but it is largely 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (folderId has a clear description: 'Folder ID to get overview for'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, merely referring to 'folder' without further detail. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Get a comprehensive overview of a folder' with specific elements (job counts by state, queue count, release count, robot count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_folders, but it does not explicitly differentiate from get_dashboard_summary, which could also provide a broader overview. Thus it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 a use case ('Useful for understanding folder health at a glance') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named. This is implied usage, not strong guidance.

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