List Email Folders

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by confirming it is 'safe for unsupervised use' and details metadata like unread counts and child folder information, beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose indicated by an emoji. It is structured into clear Args and Returns sections, with each sentence adding necessary information. No redundancies.

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?

With 4 parameters, one required, and an output schema available, the description provides complete context: it explains the return structure (list of folder objects with fields) and all parameter behaviors. There are no gaps for safe 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the JSON schema itself lacks parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: account_id as Microsoft account ID, parent_folder_id's null vs provided behavior, include_hidden default, and limit's range and default.

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 lists mail folders from a mailbox with a read-only safe behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like emailfolders_get (detail) and emailfolders_get_tree (hierarchy) by focusing on listing either root or child 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 explains when to use root vs child folder listing via the parent_folder_id parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling names imply alternatives for specific folder details or tree structure.

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