Xray Get Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: the result includes counts and the entire recursive subfolder tree, which tells the agent this is a deep traversal rather than a shallow listing. It does not mention pagination or size limits for large repositories.

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 sentences, zero waste. The core capability is front-loaded before the sibling routing sentence, so an agent skimming the opening clause already knows what the tool returns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; the description still usefully flags that the subfolder tree is complete, which is the key recursion property. Missing only guidance on project vs test_plan selection, which the schema descriptions already handle adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema including the project vs test_plan distinction, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only the folder_path usage hint via the sibling reference, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a folder') plus its scope ('with its counts and complete subfolder tree'), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like xray_create_folder and xray_move_folder. It also routes to xray_get_tests for the folder's Tests, though 'counts' is left unqualified (counts of what?).

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (xray_get_tests with folder_path=...) and the condition that selects it, so the agent knows where to go when it wants a folder's Tests rather than the folder itself. No exclusions or guidance on choosing between project and test_plan modes for folder scope.

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