get_folder_by_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' folder details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid UID), or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of folder details), error cases, and operational context, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (uid) with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantics by specifying it's 'by UID'. However, it doesn't explain what a UID is (e.g., format, source, uniqueness), its constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the low schema 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 'Get folder details by UID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (folder details), but it's vague about what 'details' includes (e.g., metadata, contents, permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_folders' by specifying retrieval by UID, but lacks specificity on the scope of returned information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_folders' or 'get_dashboard_by_uid' (a sibling tool with similar pattern). The description implies usage when you have a folder UID, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual best practices.

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