Get Password Folder

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses pagination bounds (limit default 25, max 100), scan cutoff behavior (500 records/4 pages, RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED, 'never a partial answer'), and sensitivity (credential-shaped fields masked by default in results, always in diagnostics). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then when-to-use, return shape, bounds, exclusions and sensitivity in a tight sequence; every clause earns its place. It is dense and semicolon-heavy with some cryptic parentheticals (e.g., '… dropped'), which slightly hurts readability.

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 resolution tool with hidden bounds and sensitive fields, the description covers selection, truncation limits, masking, and expansion – despite an output schema existing, it still clarifies summary-vs-full behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying identifier form usage (name vs id) and the expand toggle ('expand: true returns the full PasswordFolder'). However, 'optionally scoped to a company' is not reflected in any schema parameter, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a password folder from an id or name') and defines scope precisely. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling password_folders.get ('cheaper for a known id'), so an agent can route correctly. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when the identifier is a folder name') and names the cheaper alternative for the id case. It also states an exclusion: 'Not for text discovery: call hudu_search.' This is textbook alternative-aware guidance.

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