ofw_list_message_folders

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Fetched LIVE from OFW, so the counts are current.' This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the data freshness.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral detail, and the third clarifies what is not returned. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the action, the output (folder IDs and counts), the distinction from message content, and the live nature of the data.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'OurFamilyWizard message folders', and specifies that it returns folder IDs and unread counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ofw_list_messages by explicitly noting that it does not return message content.

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 provides a clear usage hint: 'Returns folder IDs needed to call ofw_list_messages', implying the tool is a prerequisite. It also warns that it does not return message content, preventing misuse. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives.

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