view_solution_category_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'View' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what data is returned (e.g., folder metadata, contents), or any limitations (e.g., access permissions, rate limits). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details 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?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key information ('View a solution category folder').

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'viewing' entails (e.g., returns folder details, articles within), and with 0% schema coverage for the single parameter, users are left guessing about the 'folder_id'. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'folder_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a folder_id is, how to obtain it, or its format (e.g., numeric ID from another tool). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('View') and resource ('a solution category folder in Freshdesk'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'view_solution_category' or 'list_solution_folders', but the specificity of 'solution category folder' provides some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools (e.g., 'view_solution_category', 'list_solution_folders', 'view_solution_article'), but the description doesn't explain if this is for retrieving details of a specific folder versus listing folders or viewing other solution entities.

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