Xem hộp agent

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 only that the returned data concerns address and status, with no mention of auth requirements, error behavior, or return shape. This minor added context is appropriate for a low bar.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the trigger condition first. The bilingual duplication (Vietnamese then English) is slightly redundant but does not bloat the definition.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and full annotation coverage, the essentials are present. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'status' returns and how it differs from mail_inbox_message or mail_inbox_messages, which an agent selecting among siblings would need.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions inbox_id, its format, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter the description fails to compensate, leaving the schema to carry all meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one inbox), and clarifies the target data is the inbox's address and status. It distinguishes itself from the list/messages siblings by emphasizing 'one inbox', though it does not name a sibling 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?

Provides a when-to-use trigger ('when you need the address and status of an inbox'), but gives no when-not conditions and never names alternatives such as mail_inbox_list or mail_inbox_messages. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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