media_pool_get_root_folder

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds a useful domain fact ('Every project has exactly one root folder, usually named Master'). Beyond that, there is no detail on error behavior or what happens when no project is open, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, first states purpose directly, second adds a relevant detail about the root folder's uniqueness and typical name. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 extreme simplicity (no input parameters), the annotations provide the safety profile, and an output schema exists to describe return values, the description covers everything needed. It clearly identifies the tool among many media pool siblings and provides just enough domain 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics, as there are none. The mention of 'name' as the return value gives a hint about the output, but parameter-wise there is nothing to document.

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 tool's function: to get the name of the Media Pool's root folder. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and the added note about the root folder being unique distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_pool_get_current_folder or media_pool_get_subfolders.

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: whenever the name of the root folder is needed. The statement 'Every project has exactly one root folder' provides useful context, but there is no explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is so specific that context alone is sufficient.

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