get_folder_with_messages

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about the scope of returned messages ('Only messages at folder level are returned'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key limitation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (fetching a folder with messages), annotations cover safety, but the description lacks details on output format, pagination, or error cases. Without an output schema, this leaves gaps in understanding what the tool returns, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('id'), the description compensates by clarifying that 'id' refers to the folder ID to fetch. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric, string) or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('a folder including its messages'), and identifier ('by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_folder' (which likely returns folder metadata without messages) or 'get_message' (which gets individual messages), missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by stating 'Only messages at folder level are returned,' which suggests a limitation compared to other message-fetching tools. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_folder' or 'list_messages,' leaving the context somewhat vague.

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