send_email

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, leaving the agent without important safety context.

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 short (3 words), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with critical information, and the minimalism comes at the cost of clarity and utility.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should cover basic context like expected behavior or error handling. It fails to provide any completeness, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, failing to clarify parameter usage or constraints beyond what is already structured.

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 'Send an email' is a clear but very minimal statement of the tool's action. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from siblings like forward_email or reply_to_email, making it only slightly above tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forward_email or reply_to_email. The description lacks any context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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