get_folder_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds useful context by noting that statistics include nested folders and summarizing return metrics, though it does not disclose potential limitations such as data range boundaries or response size.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first and following with a brief enumeration of return categories. Every sentence adds functional value, with no wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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 a single required parameter, strong annotations, and a simple read-only purpose, the description covers the essential context. Without an output schema, the list of metric categories gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the response shape, though exact field or structure details are not fully enumerated.

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 fully documents the sole parameter (folderId, UUID) and even tells the agent to obtain it from list_folders. The description contributes no additional parameter-specific guidance, so it is at the baseline for a schema with 100% 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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('folder statistics'), and a distinct scope ('including nested folders'). It lists concrete return categories (automation rate, status/priority breakdown, tag usage, time-based metrics), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_folder or list_folders.

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 establishes the tool's clear domain: detailed folder-level statistics with nested scope. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it in favor of siblings like get_launches_statistics or get_folder, but the focus on folder statistics makes the intended use reasonably apparent.

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