validate_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior (classification and validation) and lists return fields, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. For a validation tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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-loading the core purpose and input/output structure in the first sentence. The second sentence lists folder types, which is useful but not excessive. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 its simplicity (one parameter, defined output), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input format, return fields, and possible classifications. It does not address edge cases or errors, but for a straightforward validation tool, it is largely complete without requiring an output schema.

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 defines one parameter 'path' as a string. The description merely echoes 'Pass `{ path }`' without adding context like expected format or constraints (e.g., absolute vs relative path). With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Classifies and validates a folder.' It specifies the input format and lists the output fields, including the 'folderType' which distinguishes classifications like 'packet' and 'superfolder'. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like 'validate_all' or 'validate_area', which operate on broader scopes.

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 the input format ('Pass `{ path }`') and details the output, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'validate_all'. It implies single-folder scope, but lacks direct guidance or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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