get_solution_folder_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. The verb 'View' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavioral context is given (e.g., whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the folder is not found). The description simply restates the purpose without additional transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, the Args section duplicates information already present in the input schema (parameter name, type, title), making it slightly redundant. Excluding that duplicate content would make it more concise.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema present, the description is minimal but adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for an agent to correctly select and use the tool, especially given the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for lack of parameter explanations. The Args section states 'folder_id: The folder ID', which is essentially a restatement of the parameter name and schema title. This adds no meaningful semantic value, such as the source or format of the ID, and does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'View a specific solution folder' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating that this tool retrieves a single solution folder by ID. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_solution_folders' (which lists folders) and other get-by-id tools (e.g., get_solution_article_by_id).

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'View a specific solution folder' and the presence of folder_id parameter, suggesting it is used when a single folder's details are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it falls short of full clarity.

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