folder_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add the auth requirement and the IMAP protocol, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the folder ID is invalid). The 'Get' verb implies non-destructive behavior but this is not stated outright.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes only essential information (purpose, protocol, and credential requirement) with no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

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's simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and the schema's thorough parameter documentation, the description covers the main purpose, protocol, and a key prerequisite. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating what is returned (e.g., the folder object) or how errors are surfaced, but it is mostly complete for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already well-documented: folder_id, alias_username, and alias_password have clear descriptions. The description's mention of 'alias credentials' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it simply meets the baseline for a fully documented 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific folder for an alias'), with the qualifier '(IMAP)' adding protocol context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like folders_list (which lists all folders) and folder_create/update/delete (mutations) by focusing on a single fetch operation.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a specific folder by ID) and states a prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention related tools such as folders_list or folder_get variants, so guidance is more implicit than direct.

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