ofw_list_message_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: data is fetched LIVE so counts are current, and it explicitly bounds scope with 'Does NOT return message content.' That freshness and boundary detail is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus unread-count payload is front-loaded. The workflow link and scope boundary follow in priority order.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool this is complete: it describes what is returned (folders, unread counts, folder IDs), how fresh the data is, and what is excluded. The absence of an output schema is fully compensated by the description's return-value summary.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 and resource (list OFW message folders), scopes it with examples (inbox, sent), and adds the differentiating payload (unread counts). An agent can distinguish it from ofw_list_messages, which lists messages rather than folders.

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?

Explicitly links this tool into a workflow by stating it returns the folder IDs needed to call ofw_list_messages, so the agent knows why and when to invoke it. It does not name an exclusion or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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