mark_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the core action and the parameter format, but does not mention side effects, idempotence, reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior. This is thin for a state-mutating tool.

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 with the action front-loaded and the parameter format immediately following. There is no filler, redundant wording, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The one-parameter input contract is explained well and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. However, the description lacks usage differentiation from siblings and provides almost no behavioral context beyond the action, leaving a small but noticeable completeness gap.

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%, yet the description fully compensates for the only parameter by defining the email_id format as folder:uid and giving a concrete example (INBOX:1). This is exactly the kind of parameter-level guidance an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('标记已读' / mark as read) and includes the required resource format. It is not a bare tautology because it also specifies the email_id format with an example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like mark_unread or set_flag.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_unread, read_email, or set_flag. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.

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