mah_list_message_folders

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that counts are returned and enumerates folder tag codes, which is useful domain context. It does not mention pagination, stable ordering, or whether tags are exhaustive (says 'seen' hinting at an unverified list).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The folder-tag enumeration is dense but earns its place as domain reference. No filler.

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 read-only zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and folder codes but omits output shape (fields per folder) and next-step routing. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, and the single 'view' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: list Message Center folders with unread and total counts. The extra sentence mapping folder tags (1 Conversations/inbox, 2 Archive, 3/6/7 Bookmarked, Appointments, Automated) adds concrete scope. It does not distinguish itself from siblings beyond the obvious 'folders' vs 'messages' resource distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The folder-tag list implicitly suggests this is the entry point before mah_list_messages, but the connection is never stated. An agent must infer the routing.

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