folder.get_folder_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the HTTP endpoint (`GET /api/v1/folders/{folder_id}`) and disclosing the exact return behavior, including the error shape when the request fails or no folder is found.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action, the endpoint, and the return format in three short sentences. There is no filler or redundant content beyond what is useful.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the parameter, endpoint, return type, and failure behavior, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, and the description repeats the parameter's role ('by OID') without adding significant new meaning. It does place the parameter in the endpoint URL, which adds mild context, but the schema already fully documents folder_id.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('a single folder'), and the key identifier ('by OID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling folder_get_all_folders by emphasizing single-folder retrieval.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a folder OID and need a single folder's metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with folder_get_all_folders is evident from the language and context.

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