list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description states it returns 'all available email folders/mailboxes' and requires an account parameter, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any restrictions on which accounts work, or the structure of the response (e.g., hierarchical vs flat).

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 very concise with a one-liner purpose and a simple parameter explanation. Every word earns its place and there is no extraneous text.

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 is simple (1 required parameter, no nested objects) and there is an output schema (though not shown in the input), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify the relationship to siblings like list_accounts (perhaps needed first) or whether the output differs per account. Slight gaps in guidance on order of operations.

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, so the baseline is lower and the description must compensate. The description clearly documents the single parameter 'account', explains its purpose as 'Account ID to use', and provides examples like 'work' or 'personal'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema with only type 'string'.

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 that it lists all available email folders/mailboxes, which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_emails and list_accounts by implying it returns folder structure rather than emails or accounts.

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 provides the required account parameter with examples, which gives context for when to use it (with a specific account). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_accounts (to get account IDs) or when it should be used before listing emails within a folder.

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