comet_folders

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 mentions actions but fails to describe key traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'save current research' entails (e.g., does it overwrite existing content?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool (create/save) with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that efficiently lists all key actions without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly informing the tool's capabilities.

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 complexity (multiple actions including mutations like create/save), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, response format) or provide enough context for safe and effective use, falling short of what's needed for such a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (action and name) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format for 'name' or constraints for 'save'), resulting in the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('list', 'create', 'save') and resource ('research folders in Perplexity'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like comet_library or comet_connect), which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 through the listed actions ('list existing folders', 'create new ones', 'save current research'), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. comet_library for research management) or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with some uncertainty about optimal usage scenarios.

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