list-shared-mailbox-folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the access-scope detail ('the user has access to'), but does not disclose return format, folder hierarchy behavior, or pagination characteristics. The additional behavioral context is minimal but not contradictory.

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. Every word adds meaning: 'shared mailbox' scopes the resource, and 'the user has access to' sets the access condition. It is appropriately concise.

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 one required parameter, the description and schema together provide enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe whether nested folders are included, but that is not critical for tool selection or a basic call, especially given the strong annotations.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are already detailed: mailbox format, cursor continuation semantics, and maxItems default/cap/pagination behavior are all documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already provides it.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('mail folders of a shared mailbox the user has access to'). It clearly distinguishes this from list-mail-folders by the 'shared mailbox' qualifier, so an agent can tell them apart without opening sibling definitions.

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 clear context regarding the target resource and an access prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list-mail-folders or list-shared-mailbox-messages. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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