classify_jsonl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key safety fact: 只读, 不修改任何邮件状态. It also names the returned fields. However, it omits limits on scale, error behavior, and any permission context, so the disclosure is helpful but partial.

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 compact sentences: the first covers action plus return shape, the second front-loads the read-only guarantee. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates what comes back (主题标签/类别/理由/耗时), which is exactly what the agent needs. The minor gap is that the undocumented 'limit' parameter is left unexplained, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool.

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 coverage is 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has only a default/max/min and no textual explanation. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor misleads.

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 (分类/classify) and resource (本地 JSONL 样本), and 'local JSONL' implicitly contrasts with the sibling classify_imap. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader noticing 'local' vs IMAP.

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 word '本地' (local) implies this is the choice for on-disk samples rather than server-side mailboxes, but the description never states when to prefer it over classify_imap or list_categories, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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