imap_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List configured IMAP accounts' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify whether this validates connections, requires authentication, or how it differs from a full capabilities view beyond the sibling reference.

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 phrase with a useful sibling pointer. Every word earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the distinction from list_all_accounts. The lack of detail about whether this performs any connectivity checks or what the output shape looks like is a minor gap, but the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 zero parameters and the schema is trivial. With no inputs to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'List configured IMAP accounts' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_all_accounts by pointing to it as the 'full capabilities' option, which differentiates the two without opening schemas.

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 one routing hint: use list_all_accounts for a full capabilities view. However, it does not explain when to choose imap_list_accounts over imap_verify_account or other listing-related tools, nor does it state any limitations of this view.

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