get_email_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is '读取' (read), implying a non-destructive operation, and adds the email_id format as behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits, and does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb. This is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('读取原始 RFC 822 邮件头') and then attaches the parameter format. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler exists. It is compact and immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns and how to specify the target email. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, and omits behavioral details like error handling, but the output schema and simple complexity keep the gap small.

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%, leaving the description as the only source of parameter meaning. The description compensates well by explaining the expected email_id format ('folder:uid, such as INBOX:1'), providing a concrete example. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema property definition, though it does not elaborate on edge cases like invalid folder or UID handling.

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 and resource: '读取原始 RFC 822 邮件头' (read raw RFC 822 email headers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_email or get_thread, which imply reading full content or thread data. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying 'raw headers' and gives the email_id format with an example, which is a practical guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_email or search_emails, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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