Get a unified folder

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds important behavioral context that the returned folder id works anywhere a folder id is accepted (e.g., in mail_list), which is beyond annotations. No contradictions; description complements annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide a useful example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Perfect structure for quick understanding.

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, presence of output schema, and thorough annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the unified concept and id reusability. Minor gaps: no mention of what happens if folder_type is invalid (though enum constrains it), and no details on response structure (covered by output schema). Overall, adequate for a getter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain the parameters (folder_type enum, include_subfolders). While enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, the include_subfolders parameter is completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states that the tool gets a 'unified folder that spans every account' and provides a concrete example with the unified inbox. It distinguishes from sibling tools like folder_get (specific folder) and mail_list (can use unified id). The verb 'get' and resource 'unified folder' are specific and 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like folder_get or mail_list. It implies use for cross-account operations via the example, but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or comparison with siblings. Some guidance is provided through the example, but it's not directive.

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