List Folders

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that `with_counts` triggers a STATUS per folder and is slower, adding important behavioral context. However, it doesn't detail other behaviors like authentication requirements or whether folders are listed with hierarchy, but for a list operation, the key behavior (list and optional counts) is covered.

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 exceptionally concise: two short lines in French with minimal words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the optional parameter's trade-off. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope, the effect of the parameter, and the performance implication. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without needing additional information. The output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility.

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 input schema already has a 100% description coverage for the parameter `with_counts`, explaining it adds message and unread counts. The description adds that it triggers STATUS and is slower, which goes beyond the schema but is not a massive addition. Since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate with the extra context justifying not going below.

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 that the tool lists IMAP folders of the mailbox, with specific examples (INBOX, Archive, Sent Messages). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings that perform different actions like searching (search_emails) or moving emails (move_emails). The verb 'list' and resource 'folders' are specific and clear.

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 explains when to use the optional `with_counts` parameter: it triggers a STATUS per folder, making it slower but providing unread counts. It implies that without counts, the tool is faster and just lists folders. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of listing folders is clear enough.

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