Tài khoản MONA Mail

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on what the account/quota response contains, auth requirements, or side effects (there are none to warn about).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the 'use first' trigger. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but the total length is appropriate for a trivial read tool.

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 no-param, no-output-schema read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it promises account, quota, and 'next steps' without saying what those returns look like or what to do with them, leaving an agent to discover the response shape by calling 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or expected.

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 names a verb+resource ('read account and quota') and adds a vague third item ('bước kế tiếp' / next steps) that muddies the scope. It gives no differentiation from adjacent mail tools such as mail_plans or mail_stats, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Use first' / 'Khi bắt đầu tích hợp email' does imply when to reach for it (at the start of email integration), which is more than nothing. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions are stated, so routing between this and mail_plans/mail_status is left to inference.

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