get-routine-folder

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states that it returns complete details and lists relevant fields, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any error behavior (e.g., 404 for not found), pagination, or other consequences. This is adequate but with clear gaps, so a 3.

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 that immediately states the action ('Get complete details of a specific routine folder by its ID') followed by the included data. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what to pass (folderId) and what to expect (name, creation date, associated routines). It lacks detail on error responses or exact response structure, but the absence of an output schema makes the return-value disclosure more important. Minor gaps exist, but overall it is adequate for a simple getter.

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 has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its ID' which clarifies that folderId is the identifier, but this adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but the description does not provide examples, format constraints, or additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus a baseline 3 is fair.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('routine folder') with clear scope ('by its ID'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get-routine-folders' (plural) by focusing on a single folder. It also lists the key data returned (name, creation date, associated routines), fully clarifying the purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need details of one specific routine folder given its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context supplied by sibling tools (e.g., get-routine-folders for listing) makes the intended usage obvious. Clear context, no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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