mifactory-email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 10-email limit and 5-credit cost, which are useful operational constraints. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits beyond the batch size, authentication requirements (implied by SMTP parameters but not explicitly stated), or what happens when emails fail partially in a batch.

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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that convey the core functionality and cost. There's no wasted language, though the brevity comes at the expense of completeness. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.

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 tool with 2 parameters (one complex nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how to interpret the SMTP configuration. The credit cost mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing context.

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 50% (only the 'emails' parameter has a description). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters directly, though it implies the 'emails' parameter through the 10-email limit reference. It adds no semantic information about the SMTP configuration parameter or the structure of email objects beyond what's in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: sending up to 10 emails in a single call. It specifies the verb ('envía' - sends) and resource (emails), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools send_email and send_template. The description is in Spanish while the tool name is in English, which could cause minor confusion.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the 10-email limit and 5-credit cost, suggesting this is for batch operations with resource constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus send_email (single email) or send_template (template-based emails), nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the transactional nature and cost implication (1 credit), which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, delivery confirmation, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's in the SMTP parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two short Spanish sentences that each earn their place - one stating the core functionality, the other revealing the cost implication. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but functional context. It covers the basic purpose and cost, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 the action ('Envía' - sends) and resource ('email transaccional'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this transactional email sending from sibling tools like send_bulk or send_template, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (send_bulk, send_template). It mentions a cost ('Cuesta 1 crédito') which could imply usage considerations, but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost ('Cuesta 2 créditos'), which is a behavioral trait (resource consumption). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon sending (e.g., confirmation, side effects). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, as none exist.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences: one stating the purpose and cost, and another listing templates. Every sentence adds value (cost and template examples), though it could be slightly more structured by separating cost and template details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (5 parameters with nested objects), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and cost but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs (implied by smtp parameters), error scenarios, or return values. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 80%, providing a high baseline. The description adds minimal value by listing template names (welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification), which the schema already covers in the 'template' parameter description. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'smtp', 'variables', or other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('Envía email') and resource ('usando un template predefinido'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_bulk and send_email by specifying template-based sending. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with send_email (which might be for custom emails) or send_bulk (which might be for bulk operations).

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 implies usage when a predefined template is needed, as it lists available templates (welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus send_bulk or send_email, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the cost mention.

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