获取邮箱设置

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, that most settings are optional fields returned via $select, implying the default response may be sparse, but it says nothing about permissions required to read settings, pagination, or the response shape.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope before the select guidance. No filler, though the parenthetical field list and select examples partially repeat each other in intent.

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?

This is a two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema documentation and no output schema, so the description only needs to describe coverage and selectivity, which it does. It could add a word on what the default (no select) response contains, since the optional-field caveat matters for correct invocation.

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 already specifies both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying mailbox-domain $select values (forbidSendMailToOutside, forwardingMode, attachmentSize) that go beyond the schema's user-oriented example (phone,managerEmail,isHidden), giving the agent concrete guidance on what it can request.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource (获取用户邮箱设置) with a concrete enumeration of what is covered: external send/receive restrictions, auto-forwarding, attachment size and recipient count. It is clearly a per-user mailbox-settings read, distinguishable from siblings such as get_user, but it never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller needs a mailbox-settings view for a given user. There is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite or alternative (for example, whether get_user already returns some of these fields). The note that most fields are optional hints at when to use select, but that is left for the reader to infer.

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