mail_export_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local persistence behavior, the scope of exported content, per-attachment failure reporting, and the complete flag semantics. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 one dense sentence, front-loading the action and resource, then using a semicolon to add result semantics. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The core operation and result semantics are covered, but there is no output schema and the description omits parameter-level details and behavior when include_attachments is false. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding exactly how to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not explain account_id, message_id, or include_attachments. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the include_attachments flag's relationship to 'non-inline attachments' is not clarified, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb '保存' (save), a clear resource (full body, metadata, non-inline attachments), and a clear target (本机/local machine). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_get_message or mail_download_attachment, which read or download rather than export a complete message locally.

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 save-to-local-machine behavior implies when to use it: when a complete message export is needed rather than just listing, reading, or downloading a single attachment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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