List folders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds critical detail that counts come from Thunderbird's folder database and may lag on IMAP until folder is selected. This goes beyond annotation scope and is highly valuable.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Uses plain English and section breaks for readability. Could be slightly shorter but remains focused and no wasted sentences.

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?

With 14 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers core functionality (default browsing, depth, name filter, tree structure, count accuracy) but omits explanations for most filtering options. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for advanced filtering needs.

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% but description only explains three parameters (name, depth, tree) out of fourteen. Many filtering parameters (limit, is_tag, special_use, etc.) are not described at all, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names and defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists mail folders with IDs and message counts. The title 'List folders' is unambiguous. Description distinguishes from similar tools by explaining default browsing behavior and filter options.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on default behavior (browse root+1 level), how to increase depth, or use name filter for case-insensitive substring search. Mentions tree=true for nested output. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparisons but covers major usage patterns.

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