verify_folder_exists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, the fact that it checks both existence and readability, and the return type (boolean). The verb 'Check' implies a non-mutating operation, which is appropriate for this verification tool. It does not explicitly state 'no changes are made', but for a simple read-only check this is sufficient.

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?

A single concise sentence communicates purpose, endpoint, and return value without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 verification tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is checked, what input the agent must provide, and what the boolean result means. No additional context such as pagination, side effects, or complex return structure is needed.

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% and the single parameter folder_path is already well-defined in the schema as 'Folder path to check, as visible to Tdarr Server'. The tool description reinforces the server-visible/path concept but does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Check whether a folder exists and is readable') on a clear resource (a folder path), and includes the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_subdirectories or search_files, since this tool returns a boolean verification rather than performing discovery or file operations.

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 makes it clear when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to confirm that a folder exists and is readable by Tdarr Server before performing file operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the verification-oriented purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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