list_mail_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action clearly (list paths) but adds no details about behavior such as whether folders are recursive, whether empty folders are omitted, or any authentication requirements. The behavior is simple and aligned with the name, so it's not misleading, but it's minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures both the action and the purpose. There is no redundancy or extraneous text; every word contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param) and has an output schema (which handles return format), and the description covers usage context. However, the max_depth parameter is entirely undocumented, and with no annotations the description leaves behavioral details unspecified. The description is adequate but leaves a noticeable gap for parameter semantics.

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%, and the description does not mention the only parameter, max_depth. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on what depth levels mean or how values influence results. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Outlook store/folder paths'), and explicitly ties its purpose to choosing a folder for search_email. This differentiates it from all siblings, which address leave, contacts, or email search.

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 indicates the tool is a precursor to search_email ('to help choose the `folder`'), giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list contains no similarly scoped tool, so the usage intent is unambiguous.

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