邮箱渠道详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the unified response shape (code/msg/data), and the returned data fields, including smtpSsl semantics. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the password field is sensitive/redacted.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, then lists the request parameter and response fields in a structured way. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 single-parameter GET detail tool with no output schema, the description covers the request, required parameter, and response data fields. It is sufficiently complete to call correctly, though it lacks explicit usage guidance and auth context.

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 input schema already fully documents mailId with a description and required flag. The description restates mailId as '必填' and mentions it in the URL, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 this is a GET endpoint for mail channel details ('邮箱渠道详情') and specifies the resource via mailId. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling open_mail_list, since this is the detail variant.

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 implied by the '详情' (detail) wording and the requirement of a mailId, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus open_mail_list or other detail tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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