list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It correctly indicates the read-only nature of listing, adds that with_counts=true includes total and unread counts, and warns that this mode is slower. No destructive or side-effect warnings are needed for a listing operation.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and places the optional behavior and performance caveat in the second sentence. It is easy to parse and actionable.

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 description covers the purposechen and the optional parameter with a performance note. Since there is an output schema availabletons and no required parameters, missing details are minimal. Could slightly improve by naming when to omit with_counts, but the default false handles that.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter: with_counts=True includes total and unread counts Writ and that it is slower. This directly adds meaning beyond the bare schema type/name. No other parameters exist.

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 a specific action ('Lists all folders') and a clear scope ('of the account'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, and rename_folder because it names the listing operation and the resource (mailboxes/folders).

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 intended use is clear: list all folders in the account. It also gives guidance on when to pass with_counts=true (when counts are needed) and warns it is slower. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, though the sibling set makes the distinction trivial.

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