uselink_read_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reads a folder and includes counts), but does not mention error handling, permissions, or the full response structure. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does (reads a folder) and a notable aspect of the result (counts). It could be more exhaustive about other returned fields or error behavior, but it is sufficient for basic use.

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 lists one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that the id refers to the folder id ('Read a single folder by id'), which is essential for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's type/format information.

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 tool's function: 'Read a single folder by id, including doc / live / draft counts.' It uses a specific verb ('read'), specifies the resource ('folder'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uselink_list_folders by emphasizing 'single' and detailing the counts.

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 context for use is implied: this tool is for reading one folder when you have its id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_folders or read_document, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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