Ensure Folder

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

Annotations provide hints (idempotent, non-destructive, non-readOnly), and the description adds valuable context beyond these: it clarifies that the tool ensures existence (implying creation if missing) and specifies the path format with examples. No contradiction with annotations, and it enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral context without needing to detail return values, which are handled by the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining the 'path' parameter's purpose and providing examples ('mcp' or 'parent/child'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It effectively clarifies the parameter's role in the tool's function.

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 specific action ('ensure a folder path exists') and the resource ('folder'), with examples ('mcp' or 'parent/child') that illustrate the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like folders.delete (destructive) and folders.contents (read-only) by emphasizing creation/verification.

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 implies usage for creating or verifying folder paths, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. folders.rename for moving) or name alternatives, though the context of sibling tools suggests differentiation.

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