outlook_list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'List' with no details on return format, authentication needs, permissions, or whether the listing includes subfolders. It does not contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it fails to reveal important behavioral characteristics beyond the minimal action.

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, succinct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return value or any side effects. It would be more complete if it mentioned what the response contains (e.g., folder names, paths) or any caveats like authentication requirements, but the simplicity of the tool partially compensates.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'account' parameter. The description's phrase 'for an account' aligns with the parameter but adds no extra meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'Outlook mail folders', with scope 'for an account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_read, outlook_search, and calendar_list, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when an account's folders need to be listed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or mention of related tools like outlook_read for reading messages or calendar_list for calendar folders, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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