list_mail_folders

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns folders with uid and full name and the word 'List' signals a read-only action, but it does not mention details like folder hierarchy, inclusion of system folders, ordering, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that states the action, the resource, examples, and the returned information. Every part is useful and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it names the resource and the output fields. With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, there is little else an agent needs to call it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The description correctly focuses on the result fields instead, making the tool's use obvious.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('mail folders of the BlueMind mailbox') with examples (INBOX, Sent) and the output fields (uid, full name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with emails, calendars, or events.

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?

The usage context is implied: use it when you need the mail folders of a BlueMind mailbox. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like list_recent_emails or search_emails, leaving some routing to inference.

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