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 only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, return format, ordering, nesting behavior, or any side effects. For a listing tool this is a notable but not severe 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 a single accurate sentence with no filler. For a zero-parameter tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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, an output schema exists, and there are no parameters, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of context about folder hierarchy or how this relates to sibling tools, but that does not prevent correct selection and invocation.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning beyond what the empty input schema already conveys.

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 a specific action ('列出' = list) and a specific resource ('所有文件夹' = all folders). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like list_inbox or manage_labels, which could also relate to folder-like structures.

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 would use this tool when it needs to list all folders. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, and no mention of related tools or exclusions.

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