List Mailbox Folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes unread counts and folder IDs for rules. No contradictions.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key inclusions without any unnecessary 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?

With one required parameter, clear annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's functionality. Minor improvement could include noting that the id parameter is the mailbox ID, but it's already implied by the resource name.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter (id) already has a clear description ('ShipMail resource ID.'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('folders for a mailbox'), and what is included ('unread counts and folder IDs for rules'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like shipmail_create_mailbox_folder and shipmail_list_mailboxes by specifying 'system and custom folders for a mailbox'.

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 by stating what the tool returns, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like shipmail_list_mailboxes or shipmail_get_mailbox. No exclusions or references to siblings are given.

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