mailX tools

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds useful context about what is returned (host, port, encryption settings), but does not disclose additional aspects like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 simple lookup tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from specifying the return format (e.g., structured object with host/port/encryption fields) to fully guide the agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the parameter accepts common provider names, which aligns with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('look up IMAP server settings') and resource ('for a given email provider'), with examples of providers (Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo). It distinguishes from siblings like 'imap_check' (likely for testing connections) and 'smtp_finder' (for SMTP settings).

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 find the correct IMAP configuration for services like Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, etc.'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'imap_check' for verifying settings).

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