get_library_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets' information (implying a read-only operation) and mentions the return type, but lacks details on potential errors, performance characteristics, or system dependencies. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about its behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, and a second sentence clarifies the return type. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy for an agent 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format. However, it could be more complete by including error handling details or usage context, especially since no annotations are present to fill those gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the return value. A baseline of 4 is given as it avoids redundancy while clearly stating the output.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('the path to the MindManager library folder'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_mindmanager_version or get_grounding_information), which are also read-only information retrieval tools but for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., when to retrieve the library folder path versus other MindManager information). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.

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