Get Qmetry test plan folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get...' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it returns all folders, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any potential side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about important operational details.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key 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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, sorting behavior, how the 'withCount' parameter affects results, or any other contextual details that would help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description adds no extra context about 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 ('Get'), the resource ('Qmetry test plan folders'), and the context ('for a given project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-qmetry-test-case-folders' or 'search-qmetry-test-plan-folder' by specifying the exact resource and operation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-qmetry-test-plan-folder' or other filtering options. The agent receives no guidance on context or when not to use this tool.

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