list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Listet' implies a read-only operation and the scope ('all available email folders on the IMAP server') is stated, but there is no mention of return format, pagination, hierarchy, or potential side effects. For a simple list operation this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. The action and object are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned (all email folders on the IMAP server). It does not specify the output structure, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know the tool's purpose and call it successfully.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed; the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 uses a specific verb ('Listet') and a precise resource ('alle verfügbaren E-Mail-Ordner auf dem IMAP-Server'), clearly conveying that this tool enumerates email folders. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_emails because the resource is different.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_emails or get_inbox_config. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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