Classify recent IMAP emails read-only using prompt-defined categories. Returns categories, reasons, and audit results without marking messages as read or modifying the mailbox.
从 IMAP 邮箱只读拉取最近若干封邮件并分类。仅使用 EXAMINE 与 BODY.PEEK，不会把邮件标记为已读，也不会移动或删除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| mailbox | No | INBOX |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it names the IMAP commands used (EXAMINE, BODY.PEEK) and guarantees messages are not marked read, moved, or deleted. It stops short of describing connection/auth requirements, rate limits, or failure 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?
Two tight sentences with the core action first and the read-only guarantee second; nothing is padding.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what the classification labels are or how results are returned, which matters given a sibling named list_categories. The safety profile is well covered, but the result contract is not.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The phrase '最近若干封邮件' loosely maps to limit, but mailbox is never mentioned and the upper bound of 20 and default of 5 are left entirely to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: read-only fetch of recent messages from an IMAP mailbox and classify them. The source (IMAP) implicitly separates it from classify_jsonl, but no sibling is named 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?
Usage is only implied by the resource it operates on; there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use classify_jsonl instead when…' routing, even though a near-identical sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.