mailX tools

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying that it involves connection and authentication attempts, which provides context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential outcomes like success/failure states or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a usage guideline in the second, with zero wasted words. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and context efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 required parameters) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, but the purpose and usage are clear. A minor gap exists in not detailing potential results or errors, but annotations provide sufficient context for a testing tool.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., hostname examples, port ranges, encryption options). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Test an IMAP server connection by attempting to connect and authenticate') and the resource ('IMAP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'imap_finder' which likely discovers servers rather than testing connections. The phrase 'verify email receiving configuration' further clarifies the use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to verify email receiving configuration'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'smtp_check' for sending configuration or 'imap_finder' for server discovery, though the purpose is distinct enough to imply usage.

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