zoho_list_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior the annotations do not: the response contains no unread count and the correct alternative for that need. It does not note pagination or result size limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences with no filler: the capability and return shape come first, and the corrective routing note follows immediately. Every clause 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?

No parameters and no output schema, so the description must supply the return shape itself — and it does, by listing the fields. Combined with the unread-count caveat and the sibling routing, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing schema-level to explain and the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of return fields compensates usefully for the absence of an output schema.

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 all folders') and even enumerates the returned fields (folderId, folderName, path, folderType, isArchived), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling zoho_get_folder (single folder) by the 'all' scope.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule away from this tool: for unread mail use zoho_list_emails with status=unread instead, since this response carries no unread count. It lacks a positive 'use this when you need the folder tree' statement, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not pairing.

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