Get folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds that the tool returns projects and subfolders, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any potential details like depth of recursion, performance implications, or whether it returns only immediate children or all descendants. Since annotations cover the main safety aspect, a 3 is appropriate with some additional value from the description.

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 a single sentence that is direct and efficient, with no filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible.

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?

Given it is a read-only operation with a single parameter, well-covered schema, and an output schema present (though not analyzed), the description provides the essential context: what it returns (details, projects, subfolders). It does not explicitly mention the output schema, but since the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. Minor gap: deeper behavioral details like depth of subfolders are absent, but for a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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%: the only parameter 'name_or_id' is described as 'Folder name or ID to look up', which is clear. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond this, since it doesn't clarify whether the ID is a database ID or an OmniFocus identifier, or how to distinguish a name from an ID. But with full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get details') and the resource ('an OmniFocus folder'), and specifies the scope ('including its projects and subfolders'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_folders' (which lists folders) and 'get_project_counts' (which counts projects), making its purpose 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?

The description implies it is for retrieving a single folder's details, contrasting with list_folders for listing all, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_projects or list_projects. There is no mention of when not to use it or direct comparison to siblings, so the usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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