test_email_connection

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

The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it sends test emails or only checks ports), return format, or failure behavior. No annotations exist to mitigate this gap, so the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 very short but includes an unexplained '[query]' suffix that detracts from clarity. It lacks structured formatting and uses a single sentence, which is not ideal for a complex tool.

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 10 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values or success criteria. It does not cover what 'funciona correctamente' entails (e.g., boolean, error messages), leaving agents underinformed.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 it tests email IMAP and SMTP connections. It distinguishes from sibling test tools (e.g., test_crm_endpoint, test_ecommerce_connection) by focusing on email. However, it could be more specific about the tool's exact scope (e.g., only validates connectivity, not sending).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_email_account or other test tools. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., account existence) or when not to use it.

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