list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add the useful scope 'for one mailbox' and the verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose return format, whether all folder types are included, or how the optional account_id affects behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 one short, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are immediately clear, which is ideal for such a simple tool.

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 simple list tool, the description plus schema are mostly sufficient, but there is no mention of output shape or what happens when multiple mailboxes are linked and account_id is omitted. The absence of annotations and output schema raises the completeness bar, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 account_id parameter already has a clear description including when to omit it. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List IMAP folders') and scopes it to one mailbox, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_attachments. Even without naming alternatives, an agent can tell what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to omit or provide the account_id. The schema hints at usage by saying 'omit when only one mailbox is linked,' but the description itself provides no context or exclusions.

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