get_canned_responses_in_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral cue, but it does not mention potential side effects, sorting/pagination, authorization requirements, or error behavior. The simple, non-destructive nature of the operation makes this acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise sentence with a clear 'Args:' section. Every word is relevant and there is no waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity, an output schema exists, and the parameter is well described, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks usage context and does not guide an agent on when to select this tool over related ones. It does not mention return value pitfalls or relationship to sibling tools, which a richer context would provide.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides a clear semantic for the only parameter: 'folder_id: The canned response folder ID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title and fully explains the required input, compensating for the missing schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all canned responses within a folder') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_canned_response' (singular) and 'get_canned_response_folders'. There is no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_canned_response' or 'get_canned_response_folders'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the folder_id must come from 'get_canned_response_folders') or any context where this tool is preferred.

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