Danh sách email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read/search intent but says nothing about result format, pagination, default limits, ordering, or which statuses are included (e.g., queued vs. sandbox). The content largely restates purpose rather than revealing behavioral traits.

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 compact sentences with the usage context front-loaded. The bilingual repetition (Vietnamese and English saying the same thing) is a minor redundancy, but there is no filler or irrelevant 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?

Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description leaves important gaps: what the response looks like, the role of the limit parameter, and how results relate to mail_status/mail_stats. It is adequate for recognizing the tool's purpose but not for confidently invoking it with full expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps three parameters to filter concepts ('trạng thái, người nhận hoặc thời gian' = status, recipient, time), which adds mild meaning. However, it ignores the limit parameter entirely and adds little beyond what the self-explanatory parameter names already suggest.

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 specific action and resource: 'search sent email history', plus the filter dimensions (status, recipient, time). This is enough to distinguish it as a history-listing tool, though it never explicitly differentiates from mail_status or mail_stats among siblings.

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?

'Khi tra lịch sử gửi' ('when checking send history') provides an implicit usage context. However, there are no exclusions or alternative tool references — an agent cannot determine when to pick mail_list over mail_status (single-message status) or mail_stats (aggregate statistics) without opening other definitions.

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