Api folders object retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows folders to be "viewed or edited", while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict: an agent could reasonably attempt a write through a route that only accepts an id. Beyond that conflict the text adds nothing about auth, permissions, or what the retrieved object contains.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding and nothing buried, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the one clause it does contain is the misleading "or edited".

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 one-parameter detail-retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the id as the folder key and describe the returned folder object. It does neither, and the ambiguity versus the numerous folder siblings is left entirely unresolved.

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 one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only "type: string". The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving it unclear that this is a folder identifier (presumably a UUID) and not a name or path.

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 names the resource (folders) and gestures at an operation ("viewed"), but "viewed or edited" is boilerplate that does not pin down what this specific endpoint returns. It is almost a restatement of the title "Api folders object retrieve" and gives no way to tell it apart from the many sibling folder tools (folders_retrieve, folders_list, folders_object_retrieve, folders_get_accessible_objects_retrieve).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With ~20 folder siblings in the catalogue, an agent receives zero signal about when to pick this one over folders_retrieve or folders_list.

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