foundry_get_structure

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Read'. The description adds minimal context about the scope (folders and document references) but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the operation is recursive by default, whether it requires specific permissions, or how the output is structured. With readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the added value from the description is limited but acceptable.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary filler. It clearly states the core purpose and is front-loaded with the action word 'Read'. While it could be expanded for completeness, the conciseness itself is appropriate and matches the structure of a tool description that is meant to be brief.

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?

With 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It explains the tool's high-level purpose but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'structure', how parameters interact, or what the return value looks like. The agent would have to guess key details for correct invocation, making this incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 only 29%, with only userId and clientId having descriptions. The tool's description provides zero information about any of the 7 parameters (path, types, recursive, recursiveDepth, includeEntityData). Since the schema coverage is low, the description must compensate but entirely fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 ('Read') and the target resource ('folders and document references' in a Foundry world). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like foundry_get_folder (which retrieves a specific folder) and foundry_get_entity (which retrieves a specific entity). However, the term 'document references' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer about the output structure.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools with overlapping domains (folders, entities, search, files), the absence of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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