Coda Get Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral content is the list of returned fields, which the output schema already conveys, and it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or depth of child items. Adequate but thin against an already-covered annotation set.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping guidance following immediately. The field enumeration in the first sentence is mildly redundant given the output schema exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description supplies the missing piece (discovery prerequisite) and nothing critical is absent. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though not exhaustive.

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% and the single folder_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('The folder ID to get details for'). The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond that, 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 ('Get metadata for a single folder') and enumerates the returned fields (name, ID, parent folder, child items). It also names the sibling coda_list_folders, so an agent can distinguish this single-folder read from the list operation without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to run coda_list_folders first to discover folder IDs, which is real when-to-use guidance tied to the required folder_id parameter. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternative retrieval paths, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rubric.

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