create_folder

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

The annotation only includes destructiveHint=false, so the description rightly implies a non-destructive creation operation. It adds context about the prerequisite (parent must exist), which is useful. However, it does not explain potential errors (e.g., what happens if parent doesn't exist) or other side effects, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the critical constraint. Every word is meaningful, and it is appropriately brief for such a simple operation.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action and the prerequisite. However, the path parameter is under-specified, which is a notable gap for an agent to correctly formulate the call. This could be improved by clarifying the expected path format.

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 is minimal: only one required string parameter 'path' with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on what the 'path' should represent (e.g., whether it's a full path or relative, whether it includes the folder name). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer.

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 purpose: to create one folder in the open project, with the constraint that the parent must exist. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('folder'), which is clear and distinct from file creation tools.

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 should be used for creating folders in the active project, distinguishing it from file operations. It also gives a key condition ('Parent must exist'), which is essential for successful usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., create_file) or when NOT to use it.

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