Show Company Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the one-level depth limit, the default behavior for company_id, and detailed error semantics (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unknown id). The 'Read-only' sentence is somewhat redundant with annotations but the additional details elevate the score.

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 long and contains some redundancy, such as the read-only statement duplicating the annotation, and it suffers from a structural inconsistency between the 'collection' and 'single JSON object' phrasing. It is organized and front-loaded, but the internal contradiction and extra endpoint/API details make it less concise and clear than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return value as 'a single JSON object describing the company folder' and mentions the full field set. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, error handling, API version, and endpoint. The only slight gap is not describing pagination behavior explicitly, but the schema includes page/per_page fields, so this is adequately handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema for the two required parameters: it explains that company_id defaults to a configured value when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool first. This added context helps the agent correctly populate the parameters, justifying a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return immediate accessible children for a specific company folder') and adds a clear scope limitation ('Descendants beyond one level are not included'), which distinguishes it from recursive list tools. However, there is an internal ambiguity: it first refers to a 'single mixed collection' then later says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the company folder,' which muddles whether the response is a collection of children or a folder object. This prevents a perfect score.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which company folder you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and explains the company_id default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

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