Get Mail Folder

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Read') and permission requirements ('Requires delegated Mail.Read'). It also hints at unread count behavior via the Chinese intents. It does not describe potential side effects or failure modes, but for a simple read operation, this is acceptable.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The English sentence conveys the core function and permission, while the Chinese lines add multilingual intent examples without unnecessary fluff. Every element serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, permission, and unread count context. It could be slightly more specific about what 'folder details' includes, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides complete coverage of the 'folderId' parameter, including a description of well-known names like 'inbox' or 'drafts'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema defines, so the baseline score 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 tool reads mailbox-folder details and item counts, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mail_list_folders and mail_get_message by focusing on folder metadata and counts rather than listing all folders or retrieving individual messages.

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 provides some usage context through the Chinese intent examples (e.g., '查看邮件文件夹详情', '查看文件夹未读数量'), implying it should be used for viewing folder details and unread counts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to similar mail folder tools.

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