获取顶级文件夹ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return value ('顶级文件夹ID' - top-level folder ID), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short lines: the purpose sentence and the return value. It is front-loaded with the main action, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity, rich annotations, and simple single-parameter schema, the description adequately states what the tool does and what it returns. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, but for a straightforward read-only getter, this is a minor omission. The description is complete enough for most selection scenarios.

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 for the single optional parameter 'response_format', and it is clearly described with a default value and enum. The description itself adds no extra information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) with a clear resource '机构云盘' (organization cloud drive) and a specific target '顶级文件夹ID' (top-level folder ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like classin_get_folder_list, which retrieves folder lists, whereas this tool fetches a single top-level folder ID.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions. The usage is only implied by the name and purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to make a selection decision.

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