Send a message to Jeremy by email. Requires agent_name (your identifier) and human_name (the person you represent). Rate limited to 3 action requests per IP per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The message to send to Jeremy | |
| agent_name | Yes | Your agent name or identifier, e.g. "Claude" | |
| human_name | Yes | The name of the human you represent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: rate limit of 3 action requests per IP per day. It does not detail side effects, idempotency, or error behavior, but this is sufficient for a simple email send.
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 sentences with no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by requirements and constraints. Every sentence earns its place.
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 the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: purpose, required parameters, and a behavioral constraint. It could mention that the message is sent to a specific recipient, but it is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of agent_name (identifier) and human_name (represented person), which clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Send a message to Jeremy by email,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are primarily retrieval-oriented (get/list).
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 description specifies required parameters (agent_name, human_name) and provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, though siblings suggest no other messaging tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: booking calls, retrieving different types of project details, listing projects, getting profile/resume/reel, and sending messages. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.
The naming convention is mostly verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., book_call, get_profile, list_projects). Minor deviations like get_reel (informal noun) and send_message (verb_object) are still clear and don't disrupt pattern recognition.
10 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, covering profile, projects, booking, and messaging. The count feels natural and complete.
The tool set covers the main portfolio interactions: viewing profile, resume, reels, projects (with two categories), booking a call, and sending a message. A minor gap is lack of search or filtering for projects, but the core lifecycle is present.