查看当前 QQ 邮箱连接

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

Annotations already declare this is a closed-world, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the bar is low. The description adds a genuine boundary beyond them: it discloses that no authorization code is returned, which prevents an agent from treating this as a credential-fetching 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return subject and followed by the intent and the exclusion. No filler, and the negative constraint is placed where it is most likely to be read.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of signaling what comes back, and it does so at a high level ('identity', explicitly not the auth code). A parameterless read tool with full annotation coverage does not need more, though the exact identity fields remain unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is fully self-sufficient. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 verb and resource: it returns the QQ Mail identity bound to the current OAuth connection, and adds the intent of distinguishing between multiple mailbox connections. It is clear but never names the nearest sibling (qq_mail_connection_status), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 clause '帮助区分多个邮箱连接' implies the usage scenario (multiple connections present, identity disambiguation needed) but gives no explicit when-not-to-use rule and names no alternative among qq_mail_connection_status or the read/search siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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