get_folder

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get') and the return structure (folder metadata plus child items with IDs/types), but does not explain whether children include nested descendants, potential errors, or permission requirements, which would be useful behavioral detail.

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 concise, using two sentences to state the action and the return payload. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence adds value without unnecessary details.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and return expectations. It mentions the folder and its children, which is the core functionality, and the output schema can handle detailed return values, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with folder_id described as 'Folder ID to retrieve'. The tool description adds only the context that the folder is a content folder, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 tool 'Gets a content folder and its children' and specifies what is returned: folder metadata and a list of child items (searches, dashboards, sub-folders) with IDs and types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_personal_folder or get_content_by_path by explicitly focusing on a folder ID and its children.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used when you have a folder ID and need its contents, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to other folder/dashboard retrieval tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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