get_file_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. It indicates a read operation ('get'), which implies no side effects, but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or any other operational details. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information, every word earns its place, and it is easy 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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource, but it does not describe what 'details' includes or what the response looks like. For a simple getter, this may be sufficient, but a bit more detail on return structure would improve 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (folder_id) with a description 'The folder ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 ('get') and resource ('file folder'), and it identifies the scope as 'a specific' folder, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_file_folders (which lists folders) and delete_file_folder (which deletes). This is a clear and unambiguous definition of 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 implies that the tool is used when a folder_id is known and you need details for that specific folder, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., list_file_folders for listing all folders) or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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