apifox_folder_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (获取/get), it doesn't describe what happens when invoked - whether it requires authentication, returns structured data or plain text, has rate limits, or what happens if no folders exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it could be more specific about what '限制说明' (restriction instructions) entails, the phrasing is appropriately concise for what it communicates.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should provide more complete context about what information is returned and when this tool is valuable. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered: What format are the restrictions in? Are they organizational policies or technical limits? What authentication is required? For a tool that presumably returns important configuration information, this is insufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than trying to describe non-existent inputs. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 '获取文件夹管理功能的限制说明' (Get folder management function restriction instructions) states what the tool does in general terms - retrieving restriction information about folder management. However, it doesn't specify what kind of restrictions (size limits, permission constraints, etc.) or what format the information comes in. It distinguishes from siblings like 'apifox_project_info' or 'apifox_api_info' by focusing on folders, but remains somewhat vague about the exact nature of the information retrieved.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing folder access), when this information would be useful (before creating folders, when encountering errors), or what other tools might provide related information. The user must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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