email_list_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing folders and showing approval status) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential network dependencies, or return format details. However, 'List' implies a safe read operation, and the additional approval detail adds useful context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List') and immediately provides the key detail about approval status. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the nature of the output (folder list with approval flags). It does not explain return data structure or error conditions, but for this level of complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 schema provides no parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools. The description adds nothing about parameters since none exist, but it also does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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's function: to list IMAP folders and indicate which are approved for auto-sync to KV. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (IMAP folders), and adds a unique aspect (approval status) that distinguishes it from siblings like email_folder_stats or email_transfer_folders.

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 implies usage when you need to list IMAP folders and check their sync approval status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since this is a simple read-only list tool, the context is sufficient but lacks explicit guidance.

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