email_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires prior account authentication, whether it returns a flat list or hierarchical/nested folder structure, or what happens for accounts with no folders. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one clean sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively. The single-sentence format is acceptable, though additional contextual value could have been added without bloat.

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 it's a read/list operation with a single required parameter, the tool is relatively simple. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the obvious, the documentation falls short. Key missing elements include the return format, whether the listing is flat or hierarchical, authentication prerequisites, and how folders relate to labels/categories (especially given sibling tools email_get_labels and email_get_categories).

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 single parameter accountId exists in the schema but its semantics are not enriched by the description. The description doesn't clarify whether the account must already be added/configured (e.g., via email_add_account), what format the ID takes, or how to discover valid account IDs. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's minimal parameter info.

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 states 'List all email folders for an account' with a clear verb (List) and resource (email folders). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool email_get_labels or email_get_categories, which also list mailbox-related collections, leaving ambiguity about what 'folders' means versus labels/categories in this mail system.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like email_get_labels and email_get_categories, an agent would benefit from knowing whether folders are distinct from labels/categories and in what scenarios to choose one over another. The description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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