sch_list_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that folder names are returned and that the account resolves via credentials.json with a "default" key when omitted, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication failures, or folder hierarchy/pagination behavior.

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 core purpose in one short sentence, followed by return info and parameter guidance. Slight redundancy between "List all mailbox folders" and "Returns folder names available in the sch.gr mailbox," but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with an output schema present (so return structure needn't be explained), the description covers purpose and the account-selection mechanic. Only multi-mailbox edge cases and error conditions are unaddressed.

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%, yet the description fully explains the single parameter: it is a key in credentials.json (e.g. "work"), and omission resolves to the "default" account. This compensates well for the missing schema documentation, though it doesn't state the error behavior for an unknown key.

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 mailbox folders") plus the concrete return (folder names in the sch.gr mailbox). It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like sch_create_folder or mail siblings like sch_list_mail, though that separation is inferred rather than stated explicitly.

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 no when-to-use framing relative to alternatives (e.g. using this before sch_move_mail or after sch_create_folder); the only guidance is for the account parameter. Usage is implied by the listing nature of the tool, so it lands at minimum viable.

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