listFolders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the description states the return shape, but it omits any mention of authentication needs, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return value. Every sentence earns its place and there is no padding.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the purpose and return contents adequately. However, it leaves the lone schema parameter undocumented and gives no usage context, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

There is one parameter ('random_string') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. With such low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it provides no parameter guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('email folders/mailboxes'), and its scope is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as listEmails and searchEmails. It also states the returned content (folder names and hierarchy), so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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?

It implies a use case ('for navigation') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions that distinguish it from listEmails or searchEmails. An agent gets only a vague contextual hint, not routing instructions.

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