get_recent_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (get recent emails) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the complexity (a read operation with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary behavioral context (e.g., safety, authentication, return format) or usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit and days) fully documented in the schema, including their types and default values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a three-day default for 'days', which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('邮件列表' meaning 'email list'), and specifies a time scope ('最近三天' meaning 'last three days'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_email_content (which gets content of specific emails) and send_email (which sends emails). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_supported_providers or other siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent emails within a three-day window, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email_content (for specific email details) or configure_email_server (for setup). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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