Get one folder's details and the videos inside it

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not mention pagination behavior, that per_page caps at 100, or how video listing interacts with include_videos. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, padding, or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming. No structural or organizational problems.

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 tool with three parameters, one required, a default-true flag, and no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains and how paging applies. It says nothing about return shape, pagination limits, or empty-folder behavior. Annotations cover safety but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 67%: folder_id and include_videos are already documented in the schema, while per_page is undocumented in both places. The phrase 'the videos inside it' loosely maps to the include_videos flag, but the schema already explains that parameter, so the description adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does most of the work.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('folder') plus the notable side effect of returning contained videos, so the operation is identifiable. However, it is a verbatim restatement of the title and does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like list_folders or get_video beyond the name itself. It lands at minimum-viable clarity rather than a distinguishing statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_folders (many folders) or get_video (a single video), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name. No when/when-not/alternative information is present.

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