school_mail_list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail about the output content—that it includes Chinese folders and whether they can be opened—which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss authentication or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action ('list school mailbox folders') and appends only relevant scope detail. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description need only state what is listed. It does that and adds a useful return-content nuance, though it omits any guidance about when listing folders is preferable to other mail operations.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, and the schema is effectively complete for an empty argument object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '列出学校邮箱文件夹' (list school mailbox folders), with additional scope about Chinese folders and whether they can be opened. No sibling tool (search, read, download_attachment, status, etc.) lists folders, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from the name and description alone.

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 description implies usage by clearly identifying a listing operation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. For a zero-parameter listing tool, the intended use is largely self-evident, so this is minimum viable rather than absent.

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