signavio_get_folder_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets folder contents but doesn't describe what 'contents' includes (e.g., files, subfolders, metadata), whether it's paginated, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence ('Get contents of a specific folder by ID') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a folder lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means, the return format, error conditions, or dependencies like authentication. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the folderId parameter documented as 'The folder ID (e.g., from directory endpoint)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Get contents') and resource ('of a specific folder by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like signavio_get_root_folders (which presumably gets root-level folders) or signavio_search (which might search across folders), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific folder lookup.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, folder existence), compare it to signavio_get_root_folders for root-level access, or indicate when signavio_search might be better for broader queries. Without such context, agents must infer usage from the name alone.

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