get_folders_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the hierarchy-navigation behavior of parent_id; it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or the shape of results, which is modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core action and followed by the useful parent_id navigation note. The opening two clauses ('Get all folders. Retrieve all test case folders from a project.') are mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

For a collection query with a nested 7-field query object (including a rich filter object and a with-relations enum array) and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not cover pagination, the relations parameter, or the available filters that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only explains parent_id and gestures vaguely at project scoping ('from a project'). The required project_id, plus page, limit, with, and the entire filter object, are left unaddressed by the prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all folders. Retrieve all test case folders from a project.' This clearly separates it from the singular get_folder sibling. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many other get_*_collection tools in the sibling list.

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?

'Use the parent identifier to filter folders by their parent folder, allowing you to navigate the folder hierarchy level by level' gives one concrete usage pattern for hierarchical navigation. But no alternatives are named (e.g., get_folder for a single folder, get_test_suites_collection) and there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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