list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful distinction that returned names are the 'actual' ones rather than localized display labels, but says nothing about hierarchy (nested folders), pagination, or whether system folders are included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned at a high level. It is still incomplete on shape — flat list vs. folder tree, whether IDs accompany names — which matters since callers likely need folder names for a follow-up operation.

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 single required parameter account_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — no statement of what form the account identifier takes or whether it must be a connected account. The one parameter present is left entirely undecorated.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (mailbox folder names) with a distinguishing qualifier: it returns actual/raw names, including non-English ones. This is clearly separable from siblings like search_messages or read_message, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no preconditions stated, and no alternatives named. The phrase 'including non-English folders' implicitly signals the use case (retrieving raw folder names in localized mailboxes), which lifts it above zero guidance but leaves routing to inference.

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