quip_get_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does. It does not communicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid folder IDs, auth requirements, pagination, or that only immediate children are returned without recursive traversal. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 that front-loads the action and result. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it indicates the folder scope and the nature of the returned contents (child documents and subfolders). It slightly under-specifies whether folder metadata itself is included, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the folder_id parameter ('The ID of the folder to retrieve'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it remains at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 Quip folder's contents'), then specifies the expected result ('listing its child documents and subfolders'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like quip_get_document and quip_get_user, while the term 'child' implies immediate contents, differentiating from quip_browse_folder_tree.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like quip_browse_folder_tree, nor any prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide. It states only the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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