get_folder

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by indicating that statistics and recent cases can be optionally included, and the tool returns a single folder's details. This goes beyond what the annotations alone state and does not contradict them.

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?

One sentence with a clear subject: 'Get a single folder'. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains useful detail while avoiding fluff. The phrasing 'optionally statistics and recent cases' is slightly awkward, but still clear.

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 read-only single-resource getter, the description plus schema supply enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. With no output schema, the description gives key return structures like path, case count, optional statistics, and recent cases. Some details such as exact errors or response format after end are not described, but missing those is a minor gap for a simple get tool.

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?

Parameter descriptions cover 100% of the schema properties and already explain every parameter, including defaults and maximum cases. The tool description adds only a general, optional mention of statistics and recent cases, which does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single folder'), and says the response includes path, case count, and optionally statistics and recent cases. This distinguishes it from list_folders, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from get_folder_statistics, which also deals with folder statistics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_folders, get_folder_statistics, or any sibling tool. An agent must infer from the word 'single' that this is for one folder, but there is no explicit direction or exclusions.

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