dingtalk_mail_message_list

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

没有注解，描述仅说明“按KQL关键词搜索邮件”，未提及返回内容、分页、排序等行为。没有与注解矛盾，但信息量不足。

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?

描述为单句，简洁明了，没有冗余信息，较为高效。

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?

工具较简单，但无输出schema，描述未说明返回结构或任何使用限制。对于搜索邮件场景，缺少返回值格式等关键环境信息。

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?

输入schema中两个参数均有描述，覆盖率为100%，query参数给出了KQL示例，count参数说明了默认值。描述本身未增加额外的参数语义。

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?

描述使用动词“搜索”和资源“邮件”，并指定了KQL关键词搜索，明确了操作目标和方式。与发送邮件等sibling区分明显，但没有明确提到返回列表，稍有不足。

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?

描述没有提供使用场景或替代工具的指引，仅说明功能。没有排除条件或说明何时使用该工具而非其他邮件相关工具。

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