Api folders ids retrieve

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

The description claims folders can be 'edited,' which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. With annotations declaring a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description instead suggests a write capability and provides no additional behavioral context about what IDs are returned.

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 sentence and is not bloated, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The sentence is not front-loaded with a specific action and includes misleading wording rather than useful detail.

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 retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, especially the 'ids' aspect, but it does not. It also fails to clarify how this differs from other folder retrieval endpoints, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because no compensating detail is required.

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 says only that it is an 'API endpoint that allows folders to be viewed or edited,' which restates a generic resource operation rather than the specific 'ids_retrieve' action. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling endpoints like folders_retrieve, folders_object_retrieve, or folders_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint versus alternatives such as folders_retrieve or folders_list. The phrase 'viewed or edited' implies a broad capability but gives no exclusions or selection criteria.

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