Show Subfolder

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real context beyond them: the exact permission scope required, delegation behavior via all:delegate_to_contact_permissions, and the constraint that embedded media are limited to those the token's authorizations name. That last point is a genuine behavioral caveat an agent would otherwise miss.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but roughly 80% of the text is an auth boilerplate block that reads as template copy, and it closes with a dangling fragment ("Read-only account operation.") that is not a complete thought. The useful opening is diluted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does disclose the main return characteristic (subfolder details plus contained media) and all auth prerequisites. It omits pagination or result-size behavior for the embedded media, which is the only notable gap for a read tool of this kind.

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% (folder_id, subfolder_id, account, description_format are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond confirming that the returned payload includes media, so it neither compensates for nor extends 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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves detailed information about a specific subfolder") and adds scope ("including all media contained within it"), which cleanly separates it from list_subfolders and get_folder. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required subfolder_id and folder_id signal that this is for a known subfolder, and the media-inclusion note hints at when you'd prefer it over a plain listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (list_subfolders, get_media), so guidance is present but thin.

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