get_routine_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. It states 'Fetch', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without information about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves on failure.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 getter with one parameter, the description covers the core action but lacks return value details and error handling. Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally clarify what the response looks like (e.g., returns a routine folder object) and possible failure modes. The absence of this information makes it minimally complete but not fully.

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 covers folderId as a required integer with no description. The description adds 'by its numeric ID', confirming that folderId is the numeric identifier, but it does not explain where the ID comes from or any constraints (e.g., positive integer). This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but is minimal.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single routine folder'), and the method ('by its numeric ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routine_folders (lists all) and create_routine_folder (creates).

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 when you have a numeric folder ID and need a single folder, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description lacks explicit 'when to use this vs. that' guidance.

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