gmail_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses non-obvious count semantics: unread conversations for most folders, totals for Drafts/Outbox/Scheduled, and 'N new' for inbox categories. It does not discuss permissions or ordering, but the key return behavior is well explained.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and useful count semantics immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the content and clarifies the otherwise ambiguous unread counts. Minor gaps like ordering or whether empty folders are included keep it from a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and it correctly focuses on describing the returned list and count meanings.

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 Gmail folders (inbox categories, system folders) and user labels with unread counts.' It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gmail_labels or gmail_unread_count.

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 what is listed and how counts are calculated, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_labels or gmail_unread_count. Usage must be inferred from the purpose.

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