outlook_list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the mention of unread/total counts clarifies what data is returned. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything', but no mutation is implied and the behavior is transparent for a listing tool.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, an output schema that documents return values, and a simple list operation, the description fully covers the necessary context. It states what the tool lists and what the output includes, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 fully covered by the empty properties object. The description does not need to compensate for parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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') with a clear resource ('all mail folders in the Outlook account') and scopes the result ('with unread and total message counts'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling messaging tools like list_messages or search_messages.

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 the tool is for enumerating folders and their message counts, which is clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the simple scope (folders vs messages), the guidance is reasonably clear.

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