get_folder

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

The description states what the tool returns (metadata, linked sifts, document list), implying a read operation. However, no annotations exist to cover safety or side effects, and the description does not mention authorization, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but provides an example. Every sentence is relevant, though could be more concise by omitting the 'Args' repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input and what it returns, but fails to describe the structure of the output (e.g., format of metadata, whether lists are paginated). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining the parameter 'folder_path' with a concrete example ('/invoices/2025'). This guides the agent on the expected format, which the schema lacks.

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 specifies the action (get) and resource (folder), and lists what is retrieved (metadata, linked sifts, document list). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_folders' (which only lists folder names) and 'get_sift' (which gets a single sift).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use hints, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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