imap_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether an active connection is required, if any side effects occur, or if it returns detailed account info. The description does not add depth beyond the obvious.

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 4-word sentence. It is front-loaded and contains zero extra words, earning its place 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete for a simple list tool. It covers the essential action, though it could optionally mention if accounts are returned in a specific format or require prior setup.

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 tool has no parameters (schema properties empty, coverage 100%). According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 "List all configured IMAP accounts" uses a specific verb (list) and resource (configured IMAP accounts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imap_add_account, imap_remove_account, etc., which modify accounts.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the context implies it's for viewing existing accounts. No alternative listing tool exists among siblings, so it's adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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