get_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but there is no mention of whether 404 or an error is returned for invalid folder IDs, whether access requires workspace membership, or what the response structure looks like. For a simple retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal-but-adequate disclosure that stops short of helpful context.

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 single-sentence description is appropriately concise with zero waste. It front-loads the verb immediately. It could arguably be too terse, but for a simple single-parameter read tool, this level of conciseness is reasonable — being verbose would not add proportional value.

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 single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what fields the folder details contain, how errors are handled, or clarify the relationship to get_folders. The tool is low-complexity, so the completion burden is moderate, but the description could still specify the return content.

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% — the only parameter, folder_id, is documented as 'The folder ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter meaning and there's only one simple parameter.

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 'Get details of a specific folder' clearly uses an imperative verb with a resource, indicating a read operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' includes (e.g., name, lists, visibility settings) nor does it distinguish from closely related siblings like get_folders, get_folder_views, or get_folderless_lists. The purpose is discernible but lacks specificity about scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_folders (listing all folders), get_folder_views, and get_lists, an agent needs to know this tool is for retrieving a singular folder's metadata by ID. There's no when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention that folder_id is required to target a specific folder.

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