search_messages

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 only states the tool performs an IMAP SEARCH, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or any limitations. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 concise phrase that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could potentially include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is expected to compensate for missing behavioral details. It fails to explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, or any constraints beyond the parameter schema. This makes it incomplete for a tool that likely has nuanced behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 '按条件搜索邮件（IMAP SEARCH）' clearly states the verb 'search', the resource '邮件' (emails), and the scope '按条件' (by conditions). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_messages and get_message by emphasizing conditional search, which is a unique capability.

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 when a user needs to search emails by specific criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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