list-mail-child-folders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' action is consistent with these. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations—it does not mention pagination, truncation, or scope of children—though these are partially covered by the parameter schema.

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 with no filler or repetition. It states the essential action and resource directly, earning its place despite being terse.

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 read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating that only immediate child folders are returned and by referencing list-mail-folders as the source of folderId, but the schema and tool name cover most of this context.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already explains folderId, cursor, and maxItems, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('child folders of a mail folder'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list-mail-folders by emphasizing child folders, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or the boundary between them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list-mail-folders or list-shared-mailbox-folders. The required folderId and the phrase 'of a mail folder' imply the parent-folder context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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