Get Folder Icon

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations do not: the null return when no icon is set, and an 'Experimental' stability warning. That is real added context, though mutation-adjacent details such as permission requirements are left out.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The 'Experimental' note is terse but placed at the end where a stability caveat belongs. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented workspaceId parameter and the lack of any pointer to update_folder_icon as the write counterpart, which leaves the definition just barely complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is only 50%: folderId is documented in the schema, workspaceId is documented nowhere. The description's 'organize folder' restates the folderId description rather than explaining what workspaceId scopes or whether it defaults. With a coverage gap present, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current sidebar icon of an organize folder.' That resource phrasing implicitly separates it from get_doc_icon and from the mutating update_folder_icon. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but an agent can place it correctly from the resource alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the paired update_folder_icon for writing. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'. Adequate for a simple lookup, but the agent gets no routing help.

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