Show Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact permission scopes required, delegated-token semantics, and expiring access token support.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one good sentence, but the body repeats the same delegated-token point across three paragraphs (delegate_to_contact_permissions scope, then expiring tokens with that scope again) and ends with a dangling 'Read-only account operation.' fragment.

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?

Auth requirements are thorough and the input schema is fully documented, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a folder object contains or how the id/account pair maps to a result. Adequate but incomplete for a retrieval 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%, with 'id' documented as 'Folder Hashed ID' and 'account' explained as a credential selector. The description adds nothing further about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a single folder') and notes the legacy alias 'project', which helps agents reconcile older terminology. It does not explicitly contrast with list_folders or get_subfolder, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 call this versus list_folders, get_subfolder, or search. The only conditional content is about token types, which is authorization eligibility rather than usage context.

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