Listar pastas de email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Nada é alterado' reinforces that. It adds useful output details ('nome e quantidade de itens') but does not go beyond annotations regarding side effects or system behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and then states the resource and return contents. Every word earns its place; there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential information: what is listed, whose data it is, that it is non-destructive, and what fields are returned. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 defines no properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are trivially complete without needing compensation.

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 ('lista') and a clear resource ('as pastas de email do usuário'), and it explicitly states what is returned (nome e quantidade de itens). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_listar_emails or listar_arquivos.

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 context is clear: use this to list the user's email folders. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, such as outlook_listar_emails for messages or listar_arquivos for files. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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