gmail_get_imap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get Gmail IMAP settings', which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether it requires authentication, whether it is safe (idempotent), what format the settings are returned in, or any side effects. The agent gets minimal insight into the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is brief but arguably sufficient for a basic read operation. However, it lacks any contextual hints such as what the IMAP settings include, whether the user needs special permissions, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations, additional context would be helpful.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Therefore, there are no parameters to document, and the baseline is set to 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it does not either; however, the absence is not a flaw.

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 'Get Gmail IMAP settings' clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (Gmail IMAP settings). The tool name is gmail_get_imap, and the description directly mirrors that, making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_update_imap and gmail_get_pop.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool should be used when you need to retrieve current IMAP settings, as opposed to gmail_update_imap for changing them or gmail_get_pop for POP settings. The context is implied but not explicit.

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