Api folders retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations — unauthorized related fields are masked — but leaves unexplained what happens when the ID is missing or the caller lacks access to the folder itself.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the single idea it conveys is not the one an agent most needs (which resource, which identifier).

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?

A single-object read with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return semantics needs the description to identify the resource, the identifier type, and the masking/permission behavior. Only the masking hint is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete for selection and invocation.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and does not: it never says whether id is a folder UUID, a numeric key, or a path, nor what form it takes. Nothing is added over the bare 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 says 'Return a single object,' which essentially restates the 'retrieve' verb in the name without ever naming the resource (folders). An agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like folders_object_retrieve, folders_list, or any of the hundreds of other *_retrieve tools without falling back on the tool name.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no mention of folders_object_retrieve or folders_list as alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only usable guidance is implicitly carried by the tool name, not the description.

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