Lister les dossiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only enumeration action and specifies the returned information (folder names plus unread email counts). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple listing tool the behavior is transparent enough.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides illustrative examples and the key output detail. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, and the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: it lists all folders and includes unread counts. There is no missing prerequisite, permission, or return-value information that would materially affect invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate, and the description adds useful context about what the output includes.

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 uses the specific verb 'Énumère' (enumerates) and identifies the resource as all mailbox folders, listing examples such as Inbox, Sent Items, Drafts, and custom folders. It also adds the distinguishing output detail of unread email counts, which clearly separates it from the email-focused sibling tools.

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 implies usage when an agent needs a folder overview, and the sibling tools are all email operations, making this the only folder-listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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