list_folders

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the return shape and notes next_page_token is None, which is useful, but it does not define 'trimmed_folder' or what changes when include_raw is set. The read-only nature is inferable from the verb 'List' rather than explicitly stated.

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 text is appropriately short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the pseudo-return value is compact and structured. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded with parameter clarifications without becoming bloated.

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 simple two-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description supplies the core operation and return shape but omits parameter semantics and the meaning of 'trimmed_folder.' An agent is left to guess what include_raw actually changes and whether pagination always returns None.

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 does not compensate: neither 'mailbox' nor 'include_raw' is explained. The return shape mentions 'trimmed_folder', but the description never connects it to include_raw, leaving the agent without enough meaning to choose parameter values confidently.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's mail folders (top level).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages, list_calendars, and delete_folder, and the parenthetical 'top level' adds an important scope qualifier.

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 gives a clear context (top-level mail folders for the current user), which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives for nested folders or other folder operations, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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