school_mail_setup_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and offline (openWorldHint=false). The description still adds meaningful behavior beyond that: no popups, no authorization created, and critically no password is received or handled – real trust/safety information for a mail setup tool. It stops short of describing how the steps are delivered (return format), hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the trigger condition, then enumerates the safety constraints after a semicolon. There is no filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers usage trigger plus safety constraints. What remains thin is any hint of what the returned steps cover or that no network state is changed, but for a simple guide tool this is nearly complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter talk, which is appropriate for a no-arg guide tool.

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 gives a specific verb (返回/returns) and a concrete resource (本机操作步骤 – local machine setup steps), scoped to the school mail setup scenario. It is distinguishable from siblings like school_mail_check_connection because it returns guidance rather than performing a connection action, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 trigger conditions are stated precisely: use it on first setup (首次接入) or when the connection has failed (连接失效). That is a clear contextual 'when' with no ambiguity. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not case, so it falls short of a 5.

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