test_imap_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries that burden. It discloses the possibly surprising intent to not read messages, which establishes a safe, non-destructive behavior. It doesn't explicitly describe failure modes or what the output contains, but for a zero-parameter test operation the main behavioral concern is adequately covered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the protocol, and a critical non-behavior without any filler. Every word 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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, this description contains everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. Connection/auth checking plus the explicit 'does not read messages' caveat together provide a complete mental model.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is vacuously complete and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description still contributes useful context about testing the configured IMAP account/auth, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('test') with a resource ('IMAP connection and authentication') and a key boundary ('without reading messages'). This clearly distinguishes it from read_replies and sending tools, while the protocol name makes it distinguishable from test_smtp_connection.

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 clearly implies this tool is for verifying IMAP connectivity/authentication before actually reading messages or sending email. It draws a boundary with 'without reading messages' but does not explicitly name test_smtp_connection as the alternative for SMTP checks or provide a broader when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule.

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