outlook_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. It discloses that results include names and item counts, which is useful. But it doesn't state whether it requires authentication first (e.g., outlook_login), whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are rate limits.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes the relevant return details. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is almost adequate. However, the lack of any usage guidance or behavioral context (like auth requirements) leaves gaps for an agent that must decide between this and outlook_navigate_folder.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist.

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 resource ("Ordner im Navigationsbereich") and even enumerates the folder types returned. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like outlook_navigate_folder, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied – an agent can infer this is for discovering the folder structure before navigating or searching. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. outlook_navigate_folder or outlook_list_recent, and no stated prerequisites.

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