Lista mappar och etiketter

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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: container entries cannot be opened and hold no mail, selectable=False identifies them, and label names escape "/" as "\/", which affects downstream calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then an organized per-field breakdown. It is slightly longer than a zero-parameter list tool strictly needs, and some of the field documentation overlaps the output schema, but every entry carries a semantic note rather than pure filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully documents the semantics an agent needs (type taxonomy, container handling, escaping). The only omission is any note on result size or whether this is the canonical way to enumerate mailboxes vs. get_mailbox_status.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly spends no space on arguments and instead documents the returned fields.

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?

"Lista alla mappar/etiketter i brevlådan" states a specific verb (list) and resource (folders/labels in the mailbox), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_mailbox_status or list_emails, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

There is implicit usage guidance in the tip to pass the returned name unchanged to other tools, and the description is read-only enumeration so its role is fairly evident. But it never states when to call it versus alternatives (e.g. get_mailbox_status for counts/status) or any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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