get_email_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and mentions unread counts, but it does not describe the response format, ordering, pagination, or any edge-case behavior. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and primary output.

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 list operation, the description covers the core purpose and the main returned data (folder list with unread counts). There is no output schema, and some details like exact response shape or mailbox scoping are implied rather than explicit, but the description is still reasonably complete for this simple 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?

The only parameter, mailbox, is fully described in the schema, including its default behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('Outlook mail folders') and adds the key output detail ('unread counts'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_recent_emails_all_folders, which concern email messages rather than folder metadata.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_unread_emails or get_recent_emails_all_folders. The use case is only implied by the description, with no explicit exclusions or conditional routing.

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