mail_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. The caveat about configured accounts not guaranteeing valid authorization is useful and non-obvious. Still, it does not mention read-only behavior, failure modes, or other side effects, though a listing action is inherently low-risk.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The caveat about authorization is valuable and earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the caveat.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed and adds an important semantic caveat about authorization. It does not spell out the exact return format, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden, and the tool's simple nature makes this gap minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is little for the description to add. It appropriately names the primary output concepts (mailboxes and account_id), satisfying the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a clear resource ('本地已配置邮箱及 account_id'), stating exactly what the tool returns. Its scope of local configured accounts distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on messages rather than account enumeration.

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 gives important context with the caveat that 'configured' does not imply currently valid authorization, which helps an agent interpret results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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