Get Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'read-only, safe for unsupervised use' and mentions returned properties but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements beyond the account_id parameter.

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 structured with a main sentence, then Args and Returns sections. It is fairly concise with no fluff, though the docstring format adds a bit of formality. Could be slightly shorter but is well-organized.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (childCount, webUrl, parent info). It mentions folder_id precedence but lacks discussion of error cases or resolution behavior for path. Overall, it covers the essential context for a simple get tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: account_id as Microsoft account ID, folder_id with precedence note, and path with an example. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds clarity.

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 'Get metadata for a specific OneDrive folder' with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like folder_get_tree (which likely returns tree structure) and folder_list (which lists folders). The read-only and safe qualifier further clarifies its scope.

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 usage for retrieving metadata but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like folder_list for listing contents. The 'safe for unsupervised use' hints at appropriate contexts, but lacks explicit guidance.

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