get_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the operation type ('Get'), the input mechanism (stable ID), and the returned fields (path, parentId, status, child folder IDs, immediate project IDs). It does not cover error cases or auth, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 names the action, the target, and the expected return values with no filler. Every word contributes to operational understanding.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, specifying the returned fields makes the call predictable. The sibling context provides enough distinction, and no required usage details are missing.

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 schema already documents 'id' as the folder's id.primaryKey. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'stable ID,' which tells the agent that this identifier is persistent and reusable across calls, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('folder'), and the lookup key ('stable ID'), and it enumerates the returned data. This clearly distinguishes it from list_folders and get_project even without seeing those schemas.

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 makes clear that this is the tool for retrieving detail for a single folder by ID, which implies when to use it over list_folders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a get-by-id operation.

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