imap_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral effects, yet it only says 'Connect to an IMAP account.' It does not say whether this establishes a persistent session, authenticates, requires the account to already exist, or what happens on repeated connection attempts. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that likely changes connection state.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, the single sentence essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional substance, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry most of the context. It omits prerequisites, account selection logic, connection lifecycle, return values, and failure behavior. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only the provided text.

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 baseline is 3 even if the description adds nothing. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names: both accountId and accountName are optional, and their relationship (mutual exclusivity, precedence, or requirements) is left unexplained.

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 verb ('connect') and a resource ('an IMAP account'), which conveys the basic action. However, it is vague about what connecting entails and does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like imap_test_account or imap_add_account. It reads more as a generic restatement of the tool name than a precise capability definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an already-registered account, and no exclusions. The sibling list includes lifecycle tools like imap_add_account and imap_disconnect, but the description does not explain how imap_connect fits into that workflow.

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