folder_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns an extraction failure list, and it instructs the user to verify this list before finalizing a summary. It also reveals reliance on a 'currently specified folder' state. No contradiction with annotations, and the description enriches understanding beyond structured data.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the essential usage directive in the second. No padding or redundancy. The formatting with a line break and bold for the failure list enhances readability without bloating the text.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations that cover safety, so the description only needs to add usage context. It explains return content (counts, size, character count, failure list) and a specific procedural requirement (check failures before summary). However, it does not explicitly state that the folder must be set beforehand (via set_folder), which is a prerequisite. Given the sibling set_folder and the phrase 'currently specified folder', this is inferable, but a explicit note would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not invent parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters; the description adds no extra parameter semantics because none are needed.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Returns the inventory of the currently specified folder.' It then specifies what the inventory includes (counts by extension, size, character count, and extraction failure list), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents or analyze_structure. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's scope is well-defined.

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 gives a specific usage instruction: before writing a summary, check the failure list and disclose omitted files. This is a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. The dependency on a previously set folder (via set_folder) is implied but not stated. Overall, it provides useful guidance but leaves some inference to the agent.

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