get_folder_documents

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieves', suggesting a read operation, but does not disclose safety, idempotency, permissions, pagination, or potential limits. The return type is mentioned but incompletely.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The param docstring is slightly redundant but does not bloat the description significantly. Could be tightened further.

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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it fails to clarify whether the listing is recursive or only direct children, and does not mention limits or ordering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely restates the parameter name ('The folder id or path') without explaining format, examples, or constraints, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieves a folder's contained documents.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_folder_detail' (which retrieves folder metadata) and various lookup/search 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 usage when a folder id or path is available, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., when needing recursive listing or cross-folder search). No alternatives are mentioned despite numerous sibling tools.

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