folders_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and IMAP scope, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention pagination behavior. The schema already defines credential fields, so the added behavioral insight is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity and the schema covering parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the list returns or details like default pagination or subscription filtering, which could be important for the agent to understand the full behavior.

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% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders for an alias (IMAP)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling folder operations like folder_create, folder_get, and folder_update. The alias scope and IMAP protocol add precision.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to list folders for an alias. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as folder_get or folders_list with different filters. The credential requirement is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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