Get folder details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (retrieving details) but does not mention any limitations, such as whether the folder must exist, what happens if the ID is invalid, or what specific details are returned. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. 'Get details for one folder by ID' is front-loaded and contains exactly the essential information: action, resource, scope, and identifier.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to invoke it (by folderId). However, it lacks any detail about the return value shape or error behavior, which an agent might need for a successful call, though the simplicity mitigates the gap.

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 100% – the only parameter, folderId, is already documented as 'The folder's numeric ID' in the schema. The description reinforces that the folder is identified by ID but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Since the schema fully covers parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 applies, and the description's explicit mention of 'by ID' slightly elevates it to 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 'Get details for one folder by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (folder), and the identifier (ID). It is specific enough to distinguish it from list_folders (which lists all folders) and update_folder (which modifies a folder), though it doesn't explicitly carve out that distinction.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single folder by ID, and its sibling list_folders suggests an alternative for getting multiple folders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is clear from the verb 'get' but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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