Ordner auflisten

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety and world-openness profile. The description adds useful detail that the listing includes special roles (Sent, Drafts, Trash, Spam), but it does not disclose return format or pagination behavior. That is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key nuance about special roles in a parenthetical. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is listed and what folder types are included. It could have mentioned the return shape or path formatting, but the omission is minor given the simplicity of the 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'account' parameter, including optionality and a cross-reference to mail_list_accounts. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Listet') and a clear resource ('alle IMAP-Ordner eines Accounts'), and further specifies scope by naming special roles (Gesendet, Entwürfe, Papierkorb, Spam). This distinguishes it from account-level tools like mail_list_accounts and message-level tools like mail_search or mail_read.

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 usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to enumerate all IMAP folders of an account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as mail_list_accounts for account enumeration or mail_search for message lookup.

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