List IMAP Folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool lists folders; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or how include_subfolders alters the result.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is efficiently packaged, though it is short enough that some behavioral details are absent.

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?

The tool is simple, has only optional parameters, and the schema documents those parameters well. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description does not disclose the return shape or any edge-case behavior, and it does not help differentiate from sibling tools.

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%, with both folder_pattern and include_subfolders already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List all IMAP mailboxes/folders in the account.' It distinguishes the tool from email-centric siblings like fetch_email and list_unread, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative like list_folders versus create_folder.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_unread or search_emails. The context is implied by the name but not stated, and no exclusions or preferred conditions are provided.

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