get_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 behavioral burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether a missing folder errors, what permissions are required, or what 'information' is returned. It adds little beyond a generic retrieval statement.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with fully documented parameters, so the description is mostly adequate. However, with zero required parameters and no output schema, it should clarify that one of folderId or folderName is needed and mention the ambiguity failure mode that the schema describes.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains both folderId and the ambiguous folderName path behavior in detail. The description's phrase 'by ID or name' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving information about a folder. It also names the lookup keys, ID or name. It is clear enough to distinguish from creation tools like add_folder, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools such as get_project_by_id or get_task_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?

The description offers only the basic implied usage of retrieving a folder. It does not say when to use folderId versus folderName, what happens if neither is supplied, or how it relates to alternatives like list_projects. The schema carries the only real guidance about ambiguous names.

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