eda_dmt_folder_get_folder_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful semantics: the return type `IDMT_FolderItem | undefined` and the failure contract '若为 undefined 则获取失败' (undefined means the fetch failed), which informs result handling. Other behavioral traits — permissions, error behavior, absence of side effects — are not covered, so the disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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?

Three compact components — signature, purpose statement, and return semantics — with no filler; every line earns its place. The minor flaw is ordering: the raw TypeScript signature is front-loaded ahead of the clearer natural-language purpose, and the mixed English/Chinese presentation slightly obscures the intent.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return information, yet it never describes what attributes IDMT_FolderItem actually contains, leaving the agent to guess at the payload shape. It does cover purpose, parameters, and undefined-on-failure, which is adequate for a simple getter, but UUID sourcing and return-field details are missing.

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 describes args generically as '按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组' (JSON parameter array in official signature order), giving the agent no idea what to put inside. The description's signature reveals the actual parameters — teamUuid and folderUuid, both strings — which concretely tells the agent what values to supply. This meaningfully exceeds the schema despite its 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 combines the signature `dmt_Folder.getFolderInfo(teamUuid, folderUuid)` with the Chinese phrase '获取文件夹详细属性' (get folder detailed attributes), yielding a clear verb+resource: retrieve one folder's attributes by UUID. This is distinct from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, and modify_folder_name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_all_folders_uuid.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_dmt_folder_get_all_folders_uuid, nor any hint about how to obtain valid teamUuid/folderUuid values (e.g., resolving them before calling). The agent must infer the usage context purely from the naming pattern, with no explicit exclusions or conditions stated.

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