alm_ensure_test_plan_folder

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

Description discloses the side effect of creating missing folders and returns the folder ID and path. However, it does not clarify behavior when the folder already exists (e.g., idempotent), nor mention permissions or errors. With no annotations, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Very concise: two lines plus a returns block. Every sentence serves a purpose. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter description is efficient.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter format, and return structure. It could mention idempotency or error handling, but for an 'ensure' tool, the basics are sufficient.

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 Args section adds meaning beyond the input schema by describing the format ('/' separated path) and providing an example ('AppName/Sprint1/Regression'). Since schema coverage is 0%, this provides needed context for the single parameter.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Ensure' and resource 'Test Plan folder path', and explains that it creates missing folders. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'alm_ensure_test_lab_folder' which operates on a different context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'alm_ensure_test_lab_folder' or other folder-related tools. The description implies a use case for ensuring a path exists, but lacks conditions or exclusions.

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