mail_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the listing action and omits any information about pagination, hidden folders, required permissions, or effects. There is no mention of what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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 very short, which is good for conciseness, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. It conveys no additional information beyond the tool name and a slightly expanded phrase, so it fails to earn its place through useful content.

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 has five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of mailboxScope variants. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with just this description.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters (cursor, pageSize, mailboxScope, includeHidden, parentFolderId). The agent is left without any guidance on parameter format, purpose, or relationships.

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 folders'), but 'selected mailbox scope' is vague and does not clarify what scopes exist or how they are chosen. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like mail_list_attachments, but it does identify the primary action and target.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool like mail_search_messages or mail_get_thread.

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