List Folders

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 does disclose pagination and sorting behavior, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it returns only folders at the top level or all nested folders, or any other side-effect relevant behavior. For a simple list operation, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are in the first sentence, and capability highlights are in the second. Every word adds value, and it front-loads the most important information.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema has 100% parameter coverage, the description is largely complete for a straightforward listing tool. It communicates the scope (within a project), the core operation (list folders), and the key features (pagination, sorting). The only shortfall is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this over related listing tools, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with clear descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description's mention of pagination and sorting adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 states a specific verb and resource: list folders within a QA Sphere project. It also adds the pagination and sorting capabilities, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name. The resource 'folders' is unique among the listed siblings, which makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'within a specific QA Sphere project' implies that projectCode is required, and the mention of pagination and sorting hints at when the optional parameters matter. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_test_cases or upsert_folders, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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