Listar carpetas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying the returned fields and noting that totals/unread counts are server-dependent, but it does not disclose auth needs, pagination, or failure behavior. This is solid added value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

One efficiently constructed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the exact returned attributes and a relevant server-side condition. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information; it does so by naming the path, special-use flags, and optional counts. It is complete for a 0-param read tool, though it omits hierarchy/delimiter details and error behavior.

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 and the schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (carpetas IMAP) and enumerates the returned attributes (ruta exacta, uso especial, total, no leídos). This clearly distinguishes it from generic status or message tools, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like mailbox_status or unseen_summary, so it misses the top mark.

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 says what the tool lists but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for enumerating folders, which is the same gap that earned the calibration example update_drive a 2.

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