list-mail-folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's mention of 'List' aligns with read-only behavior but adds little behavioral detail beyond the purpose.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the exact scope and resource with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with rich annotations, detailed parameter schema, and clear scoping, the description is complete. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional 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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, clearly explaining cursor and maxItems including defaults, max values, and pagination behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 3 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?

Description specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('top-level mail folders of the signed-in user's mailbox'). Scoping to top-level and signed-in user distinguishes it from siblings like list-mail-child-folders and list-shared-mailbox-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 description clearly implies when to use it: for top-level folders in the signed-in user's own mailbox. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope wording effectively separates it from shared-mailbox and child-folder tools.

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