List Yahoo Mail folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds useful scope detail by mentioning special-use folders, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether hidden folders are included, or the response shape. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and object appear first, and the special-use folder examples add meaningful detail 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to let an agent invoke it correctly. It clearly defines what is returned (all folders/mailboxes, including special-use ones). It could mention read-only behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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 and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because no parameters 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List all folders/mailboxes in the Yahoo Mail account.' It also gives concrete examples (Inbox, Sent, Drafts, Trash) that define the scope and distinguish it from siblings like list_messages or create_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?

The use case is implied rather than explicit: if an agent needs the folder list, this tool is the obvious choice. However, the description does not name alternatives, when-not-to-use, or any exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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