imap_test_account

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool tests connectivity and returns counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., account must exist), or error behavior. Basic transparency but could be richer.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second elaborates on validation and output. Front-loaded and 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, action, and outcome (folder and message counts). It is sufficient, though mentioning potential success/error responses or additional details could improve completeness.

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 only parameter, accountId, has a schema description. The tool description adds context: 'without re-entering credentials' clarifies that accountId refers to an existing account and no credentials are needed. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool tests an existing account connection without re-entering credentials, validates IMAP connectivity, and returns folder and message counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like imap_connect and imap_list_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 mentions 'without re-entering credentials' implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools. Some guidance is present but incomplete.

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