get_single_routine_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 says 'Get' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 vs null), or whether the full folder object is returned. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the tool name.

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 sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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-get tool, the description is acceptable but not complete. It lacks any indication of the return value or error conditions, which is important since there is no output schema or annotations to provide that context.

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 only says 'by id', which maps to folderId but provides no additional meaning (e.g., format, source, or uniqueness). This is very thin compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('routine folder'), and the scope ('single' and 'by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_routine_folders (plural) and get_single_routine (different resource).

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 you have a folder ID and need a single folder, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. The plural sibling get_routine_folders is an obvious alternative, but no direct guidance is provided.

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