Danh sách cấu hình email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys non-mutating behavior through 'List' and reveals that the output includes recipient verification status, but it does not disclose auth needs, scope, pagination, or any side-effect guarantees beyond what 'list' implies.

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 compact sentence in two languages with no filler. The operative verb and object appear immediately, and the recipient-verification detail is appended without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, non-mutating list tool, the description is sufficient to invoke: it names the resource and the notable output trait. It would be stronger with explicit return-shape or scope details, but the absence of parameters and output schema keeps the needed context 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description instead clarifies the output domain (configs plus verification status), which is the relevant context.

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 uses a specific verb (Liệt kê/List) with a concrete resource (email notification configs) and adds a distinguishing scope detail (recipient verification status). Among the email-config siblings, this clearly identifies the read-only listing operation rather than create/update/delete/verify/test.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource: an agent should call this when the user asks to see email notification configs or their recipient verification state. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so there is no explicit routing guidance.

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