list_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. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — that with_counts=True is slower because it fetches totals and unread counts — and 'Lista' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, account resolution failure behavior, or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional flag's tradeoff, plus a compact parameter gloss. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough: purpose, both parameter semantics, and the performance caveat. The only gap is the absence of any permission or error-handling context, which for a read-only listing is minor.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'account' is documented as a name or e-mail with empty meaning the default account, and 'with_counts' as including totals and unread counts at a performance cost. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Lista todas as pastas (mailboxes) de uma conta') with clear scope. It is unmistakably distinct from the folder-mutating siblings (create_folder, delete_folder, rename_folder) and from message-level tools like search_emails.

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 describing what the tool returns and the with_counts variant, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as account_info or how it relates to folder listing elsewhere. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit, with no exclusions.

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