send_hourly_report_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this sends a test only and does not create fake course events or change timers, which is meaningful side-effect transparency. However, it omits whether a real notification is delivered, what account_id controls, and any permission or rate-limit 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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted text. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the test-only side-effect scope.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema that need not be explained in the description. Still, the description leaves out what account_id selects and what preconditions, such as configured SMTP or bound email, are required before a test send can succeed.

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 0%, so the schema provides no meaning for account_id, and the description never mentions the parameter. The only clue is the parameter name itself, leaving the description without added semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('send') and resource ('one hourly-format TEST'), so an agent can tell this is a test-send tool rather than a general notification sender. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby send_notification_test sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over send_notification_test or send_learning_stage_notice, and no prerequisites such as SMTP configuration or whether an account must be bound. The word 'Explicitly' hints at manual invocation but does not define the selection condition.

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