get_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get metadata for a folder.' It does not describe the return structure, whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), or any error conditions. The lack of explicit transparency is a notable 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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it sacrifices informational depth for brevity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It lacks details on return values, typical use cases, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving gaps for the agent. The lack of annotations exacerbates this incompleteness.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'id' with format uuid, but no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to or how it should be used, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema's format hint. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a folder'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_file or list_folder_children. It is specific and unambiguous, satisfying the criteria for a high score.

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 such as get_file or list_folder_children. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, so it fails to orient the agent.

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