get_document_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. It discloses that it returns a JSON string with folder details, but it doesn't mention whether the folder is fetched from a specific organization context, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the folder_id is invalid. The return format is mentioned, which is some credit, but behavioral traits beyond the basic operation are largely absent.

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 main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured and easy to parse. No wasted words, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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 simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks context about when to use it versus list_document_folders, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the missing usage guidance prevents a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name the parameter (folder_id) and its meaning ('The document folder ID'), which adds a bit of semantic value beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't provide details like where to find the folder_id, format constraints, or how it relates to other resources. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds minimal but non-zero meaning.

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 ('Get') and resource ('document folder by ID'), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_document_folders or get_document, but the resource and ID-based retrieval are clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_document_folders or get_organization_documents. The description simply states what it does without any context about when it is the right choice.

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