List Mail Folders

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. While 'all' hints at complete enumeration, there is no mention of pagination, ordering, or potential side effects. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description contributes little additional transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no verbose or redundant content.

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 has no parameters, an existing output schema, and a simple enumeration operation, the description is largely complete. However, it could have provided a hint about when to use it relative to sibling tools, and it does not mention whether the result is sorted or complete. Still, for a zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with no properties. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information needed; the description's mention of 'all email folders' clarifies the scope without needing to document parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'all email folders', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list-note-folders' and 'list-emails'. The inclusion of 'all' and 'email' makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention which sibling tools to use for related operations (e.g., listing emails or notes), nor does it explain the typical workflow context for listing folders.

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