iris_list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by describing a listing action and specifies the output scope (top-level folders) and fields. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or pagination, but for a parameterless list operation this is a minor gap, not a contradiction.

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 compact sentences: the first states the action and output, the second explains its purpose. No filler, no repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the what, why, and how it feeds into other tools. The output schema already documents the return shape, so the description needn't repeat it. It could mention authentication prerequisites, but the presence of iris_auth_status in the sibling set makes that an implied step for the agent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists; the schema is empty and the description correctly focuses on the operation and output.

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 a specific verb (List), a precise resource (the mailbox's top-level mail folders), and enumerates the returned fields (name, id, unread/total counts). It also names the downstream consumers (iris_create_draft, iris_list_drafts), which clearly distinguishes it from the draft and auth siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives a concrete use case: pick a folder to pass as the `folder` argument to two named sibling tools. This makes the intended context explicit. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but since there is no competing folder-listing tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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