Get Password Folder

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds real context beyond them by disclosing that credential-shaped fields are masked by default, which matters for a password-related read. It doesn't say whether masking is toggleable or what the resolve returns for ambiguous names (multiple matches).

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the routing hint and masking note; nothing is redundant. Slightly dense with semicolons but every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema covers return shape, so that isn't needed. However, for a resolver with a five-key nested identifier at 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the remaining keys and the ambiguous-match behavior; those gaps remain alongside an unexplained 'company-scoped' capability.

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 0% and the identifier is a nested anyOf accepting id, name, slug, domain, and external_id, but the description only mentions id and name, leaving three accepted keys undocumented. The 'company-scoped' wording hints at a scope option that has no corresponding schema field, which muddies rather than clarifies.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('password folder'), plus the accepted key types (id or name). It names a cheaper alternative path (password_folders.get), which differentiates it from a plain id lookup, though it's not a listed sibling so the contrast is only partially useful.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer password_folders.get when the id is already known, giving a clear cost/selection rule. It stops short of saying when this resolve path is the right choice (e.g., name-based lookups where id is unknown) and the 'optionally company-scoped' claim has no matching named parameter.

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