Get Test Manager Test Run Folders by Project ID

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool as read-only ('does not modify anything') and lists what it returns. It could mention potential error cases or response size limits, but the information given is sufficient for basic transparency.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then adds distinctions and usage notes. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return fields (name, ID, timestamps, counts) and clarifies the separation from test case folders. It does not specify if results are paginated or ordered, but for a tool with one parameter, essentials are covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds context that the project_id refers to a LambdaTest project, but it does not elaborate on format or source (e.g., from getProjects). This provides marginal added value over the schema's parameter definition.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as the folder/subfolder hierarchy for test runs. It distinguishes from the sibling tool tm.get_foldersByProjectId for test case folders, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: to get test run folder hierarchy. It also clarifies what it does not return (the runs themselves) and directs to tm.get_testRunsByProjectId for listing runs, providing an alternative.

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