outlook_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits fully. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format (e.g., pagination via cursor is ignored). It implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and returns. The second provides critical usage guidance. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the main parameter option. However, it lacks details on the cursor parameter, pagination, and explicit behavior assurances (e.g., read safety). Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 description adds meaning for the 'recursive' parameter, explaining its effect. However, it does not mention the 'cursor' parameter at all, leaving its purpose unclear. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 lists mail folders and specifies the returned fields (message counts, parent_id, child count). The verb 'List' and resource 'mail folders' are explicit. It also distinguishes the default behavior (top-level only) from the recursive option.

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 explains when to use the default versus the recursive parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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