get_ecm_folder_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and required parameter but lacks details about return values, error handling, or operational constraints. The agent would need to infer much from context.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, merely restating that it requires 'the specified folder ID.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('room ECM folder'), specifying it requires a folder ID. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_ecm_folder' which lists folders rather than getting details for a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools that retrieve different resource types.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other get_* tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid folder ID from list_ecm_folder. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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