send_email

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It claims the tool is 'read-only and stateless' and 'does not modify any external systems', which is false for an email-sending tool. This is a critical misrepresentation. Other details (rate limits, auth, error handling) are overshadowed by this contradiction.

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 overly long and includes irrelevant sections (classification use cases) that likely were copy-pasted. The relevant email-sending info is mixed with off-topic content. Not concise; structure is poor.

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?

Covers many aspects (safety, rate limits, auth, error handling) but the false read-only claim undermines credibility. Missing output schema. The confusing unrelated sections reduce completeness for the actual task.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists all 8 parameters with clear explanations: to/subject/body as plain text, html boolean, cc/bcc as comma-separated, confirm for preview vs send. The api_key parameter is mentioned in behavioral sections. Adds significant value beyond the bare 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 first sentence clearly states 'Send an email via SMTP.' However, subsequent contradictory statements (e.g., 'read-only and stateless') and irrelevant 'When to use' sections about classification frameworks confuse the core purpose.

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?

Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but these are copied from an unrelated tool (classification analysis). No comparison to siblings like create_draft or search_emails. The safety note about confirm parameter is helpful but insufficient.

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