mifactory-email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses two behavioral traits: a maximum of 10 emails and a cost of 5 credits. However, it does not mention failure handling, atomicity, or response behavior, which are relevant for an email-sending 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, each carrying distinct information: the action/limit and the cost. No filler or 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?

Despite the nested SMTP object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a bare action, limit, and cost. It omits important context like error handling, partial-send behavior, and response format, making it incomplete for a moderately complex bulk-send operation.

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, and the main description merely repeats that max limit. The 'smtp' object lacks any explanation in the schema or description, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 hasta 10 emails'), the resource ('emails'), and the scope ('en una sola llamada'), distinguishing it from likely single-send siblings. The cost mention adds specificity.

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 a batching use case ('hasta 10 emails en una sola llamada') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus send_email or send_template, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state 'Cuesta 1 crédito' (costs 1 credit), which is useful. However, it omits other traits like SMTP authentication needs, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or error handling. The cost mention is a positive, but coverage is thin.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost. Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or filler. It's a model of concise writing.

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?

Despite having a nested SMTP object and 6 parameters, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings, what the response looks like, or how the SMTP config is used. Schema covers parameters, but the description leaves significant contextual gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, such as how to choose between text and html or the significance of optional fields.

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 'Envía un email transaccional' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (transactional email). It implicitly differentiates from siblings send_bulk and send_template by specifying 'transactional', but does not explicitly contrast them, so it loses some distinctiveness.

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 send_bulk or send_template. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. Users would not know if this is the correct choice for their use case.

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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 2-credit cost, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or behavior when the template is missing. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then listing templates and the credit cost. Every sentence carries useful information, with no unnecessary filler.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lists templates and cost but does not explain the role of 'variables', distinguish from sibling tools, or describe what happens after sending. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 high (80%), with parameter descriptions for 'to', 'template', and 'variables'. The description's list of templates duplicates the schema's enum-like description, adding no new meaning. It does not clarify how 'variables' interacts with templates or what 'smtp' expects beyond 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 sends an email using a predefined template, with a specific list of available templates (welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email or send_bulk.

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 use cases by mentioning 'template predefinido' and listing template names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_bulk or send_email. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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