read_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'List recent emails' without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it marks as read, fetches full content or headers, or is destructive). This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention ordering or recency criteria, nor how it differs from similar tools like 'read_email' or 'read_inbox' (beyond the folder parameter).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List recent emails') and the specific resource ('from a named IMAP folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_folders' (which lists folder names) and 'read_inbox' (which reads the inbox specifically), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but the parameter schema hints at a prerequisite: 'Use list_folders to see all available names.' This provides context for usage, though it lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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