m365_contacts_folders_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful behavioral nuance that the tool returns either top-level folders or only direct children (non-recursive) depending on parentFolderId. It does not cover pagination, default top limits, or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar for safety disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the resource and the conditional two-mode behavior without 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?

The tool is low-complexity with read-only annotations, and the core behavior is clear. However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should have explained the `top` parameter to be fully self-sufficient. It is adequate but has a clear gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains parentFolderId as the folder whose children are listed. The `top` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List' with the resource 'contact folders' and clearly distinguishes the two scopes: top-level folders or direct children of one folder. This differentiates it from sibling tools like m365_contacts_folder_create/update/delete and m365_contacts_list.

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 implies usage through its two modes (top-level vs direct children) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this tool over other folder-related tools or when not to use it.

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