imap_connect

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

No annotations provided to indicate read-only or destructive behavior. The description does not disclose whether the connection mutates state, requires authentication, or times out.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but may be too terse. It is not front-loaded with additional context, but it efficiently conveys the core action.

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 complexity of IMAP connection management and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't specify what happens after connection (e.g., session state, port, security) or how to handle errors.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters, providing descriptions like 'Account ID to connect to'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 uses a clear verb 'Connect' and specifies the resource 'IMAP account'. It is distinct from siblings like imap_disconnect, but lacks specificity about what 'connect' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., imap_test_account). No context on prerequisites or ordering with other tools.

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