get_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Get' entails). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict them but adds minimal value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a folder by its ID'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values or usage context. For a tool with 4 parameters and sibling alternatives, it should provide more guidance on what the tool returns and when to use it, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 75%, with three of four parameters documented. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with the required 'id' parameter but adds no further semantics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 3 applies, as the description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap or enhance understanding of parameters like 'direction' or 'date'.

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 a folder by its ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_folder_with_messages' or 'get_root_folders', which would require more specificity about what exactly is retrieved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_folder_with_messages' (which might include messages) or 'get_root_folders' (which lists root folders), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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