bookshelf_get_rootfolder

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

With readOnlyHint: true annotation, the read-only nature is already declared. The description adds little behavioral context beyond stating it fetches a single item by id; it does not mention behavior on not found or potential errors. Since annotations cover safety profile, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action (Fetch) and resource (rootfolder), making it immediately clear.

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 get-by-id operation with an output schema present, the description is adequate. It does not waste space on unnecessary details. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit usage context, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, leaving the description to explain the 'id' parameter. The description only repeats 'by id' without clarifying what the id represents or any format constraints. This adds minimal value over the schema's basic type/integer indication.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and a specific resource 'single rootfolder by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as list_rootfolder (multiple) and create/update/delete. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the 'by id' phrasing implies it is the go-to tool when a single rootfolder ID is known, while list_rootfolder would be used otherwise. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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