create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: idempotency, side effects (mkdir on disk, no DB writes until file), rejection conditions, and absence of external auth or rate limits. This exceeds the minimal requirement.

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, but the information is densely packed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by constraints and side effects. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullet points, but it remains efficient and clear.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior, constraints, side effects, and return value. No additional information is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: clarifying that 'project_id' can be null/omitted for KB, and 'name' supports nested paths with rejection of certain values. This aids correct invocation.

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 creates a folder under a project root or the KB, using specific verbs ('create') and resource ('folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_file' and 'delete_folder' by detailing unique behavior such as idempotency and rejection of invalid names.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating folders) and specifies constraints like rejecting empty names, null bytes, and '..' segments. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared to alternatives, though the sibling list provides some context.

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