email_send

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 only mentions 'via SMTP', offering minimal technical context. It fails to state whether email validation occurs, whether attachments are supported (and thus should be handled via email_attachment), or any rate limits or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices essential information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity results in unclear completeness. A better structure would include key behavioral notes up front.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It provides no information on return values (e.g., sent email ID or error messages), no post-condition details, and no guidance on parameter combinations. Agents cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of any of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'to' expects email addresses, 'html' indicates HTML formatting), leaving agents without essential usage semantics.

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 uses the verb 'send' with resource 'email' and specifies the protocol 'via SMTP', which distinguishes it from siblings like email_reply (replying to existing threads) or email_read. However, it could be more specific about the tool's scope, such as indicating it sends a new email from scratch.

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 alternatives like email_reply or email_attachment. An agent cannot tell if this tool is appropriate for sending a reply or attaching files without additional context.

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