get_folders

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It clearly explains the read-only nature (listing), parameter effects (recursive vs shallow), and return structure. However, it does not mention authentication or permission requirements.

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 docstring-style format is clear but slightly verbose (Args/Returns). Could be slightly more concise, but the information is well-organized 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, and return format. No gaps detected.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: parent_folder_id's default value and acceptable types, and recursive's boolean meaning. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List mail folders from the Exchange mailbox.' The verb 'list' and resource 'mail folders' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_folder or delete_folder.

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?

While it explains default behavior (top-level) and the recursive option, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_calls_extensive or get_emails. No exclusion criteria given.

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