list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: raw IMAP flags, hierarchy delimiter, and a role classification derived from RFC 6154 SPECIAL-USE flags with null for ordinary folders.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the argument. The parenthetical role enumeration is long but functional; the 'Args:' block is slightly formulaic for a single parameter, minor overhead only.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool, everything an agent needs is present: what is listed, the identifier field to reuse downstream, the role vocabulary, and the parameter's origin. An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so no further return-value or permission detail is owed.

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 single parameter is documented only as a bare 'string' titled Account. The description compensates by defining it as 'Account name from list_accounts', which tells the agent where the valid value comes from rather than its format alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every IMAP folder (mailbox) in an account') and clarifies IMAP folder = mailbox. It also enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent immediately knows this is the folder-enumeration tool rather than a message-search or resolution tool.

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 rather than stated: the entry's `name` is noted as the value 'to use in other tools', and `account` is sourced from list_accounts. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against the closest sibling, resolve_folder, which serves a related folder-lookup purpose.

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