get_folder

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

Annotations establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a wealth of nuanced behavior: casesCount only counts direct children, statistics cover nested items, null status/priority are excluded, and archived rows are excluded from all counts. This goes far beyond the annotations and is essential for interpreting results.

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 lengthy but each sentence and clause carries a distinct fact about scope, lifetime, or counting semantics. It front-loads the core summary of returned fields and then systematically explains the flags and edge conditions. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

This tool has no output schema, so the description fully compensates by enumerating returned fields and the caveats of archived data, direct versus nested case counts, and shortcut behavior. It also gives alternatives for cases requiring archived data or the full tree. An agent has enough information to call and interpret this tool reliably.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description provides meaningful extra semantics: includeStats yields a statistics object over the whole subtree, includeCases returns recent cases under recentCases rather than cases, and casesLimit caps that list. It even clarifies that folderId comes from list_folders.

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 ('Get') and resource ('folder or suite by id') and explicitly lists the returned fields. It distinguishes get_folder from list_folders, and the name and description clearly frame it as a detail-fetch tool rather than a tree/navigation tool.

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 says 'Use list_folders to see the tree or find an id; use this when you have one id and want detail.' It also notes when archived data is needed, pointing to list_test_cases with includeDeleted, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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