list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: recursion is limited to one level deep, the scoping depends on whether parentFolderId is present, and the 'id' field in the response is the folder reference. It stops short of covering permissions, pagination behavior against the limit parameter, or response shape.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the id-for-list_emails tip, then the well-known-names shortcut. Every sentence carries information; slight redundancy between the descriptions of parentFolderId here and in the schema keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of noting that the returned 'id' is the folder reference to reuse, and with no annotations it covers scoping and depth. It does not address the limit parameter's interaction (e.g., truncation of results in large mailboxes), which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaning: it clarifies the depth semantics ('immediate child folders, one level deep') rather than just 'children', and it enumerates the valid well-known folder name values, which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List mail folders') and immediately splits the behavior by input: no parentFolderId returns top-level folders, parentFolderId returns immediate children. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_emails as the consumer of the returned id.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to call it: Outlook's well-known folder names (inbox, drafts, sentitems, etc.) can be passed directly to other tools without calling list_folders first. This is a genuine routing rule against an alternative path, not just a use-case hint.

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