Trạng thái email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does signal a non-mutating inspection through 'đọc/read/inspect' and discloses the elements inspected (status, events, sandbox_preview). However, it does not explain what sandbox_preview contains, any polling or waiting semantics after sending, or what happens for an invalid or missing email_id.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the trigger condition and closing with the plain-English purpose. The bilingual duplication is mild redundancy, but nothing is wasted and the key scoping detail ('after sending') is prominent.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the basics — what to inspect and when. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left guessing at the shape of the returned status/events objects, the semantics of sandbox_preview, and the provenance of email_id. Adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 schema itself provides no meaning for email_id. The description compensates only partially: it implies the ID identifies a just-sent email, but it never states where the ID originates (e.g., from mail_send's response) or gives any format guidance beyond the schema's raw length constraints.

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 action — inspecting/reading an email's status, events, and sandbox_preview after sending — rather than merely restating the name or title. It differentiates itself from email-family siblings (mail_send, mail_list, mail_stats) by context, though it never names the alternatives 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?

The Vietnamese opening supplies an explicit trigger condition ('when needing to confirm the email was delivered'), and the English clause adds sequencing context ('after sending'). No exclusions or named alternatives, but the when-condition is concrete enough for an agent to route to this tool over mail_send or mail_list.

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