Verbindung testen

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds the specific behavioral trait that it tests both IMAP and SMTP logins and reports each separately, which is beyond what annotations provide and useful for the agent.

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?

One sentence, directly to the point, with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and efficiently adds the detail about separate reporting.

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 diagnostic tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and that it reports two results independently. It does not specify the format of the results, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive description of the single optional account parameter, including guidance on omission, required when multiple accounts, and reference to mail_list_accounts. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (checks IMAP and SMTP login) on a specific resource (an account) and notes that it reports both results separately. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform connection testing.

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 implies usage for verifying an account's connectivity but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or exclude cases. The account parameter description gives some guidance on selecting accounts, but not on tool selection.

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