Get Qmetry test cycle folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it supports pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The optional parameters (sort, withCount) are not described.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and additional context that would improve understanding without being verbose.

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 no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, how filtering or sorting works via parameters, or any usage constraints.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional insight beyond the schema, just reiterates the projectId context. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'test cycle folders' and specifies the context 'for a given project'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get-qmetry-test-case-folders' or 'search-qmetry-test-cycle-folder'.

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 a required projectId but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search-qmetry-test-cycle-folder' or other 'get' tools. No exclusions or context clarity.

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