Reply to all

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that own addresses are removed from Cc and duplicates dropped. It also points to 'reply' for draft/confirmation rules, which is useful. However, it does not detail confirmation rules itself, relying on the sibling 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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key behavioral nuance. No wasted words, and the cross-reference to 'reply' is efficient.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete because it references 'reply' for shared rules and the schema covers parameters. It could explain return values or edge cases, but the tool is a variant of 'reply', and the core behavior is clear. A more self-contained description would be better, but the sibling reference helps.

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 91%, so most parameters are already documented. The description mentions Cc behavior but does not add specific parameter semantics. The reference to 'reply' rules implies similar parameter behavior, but that is indirect. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 replies to everyone on a message, distinguishing it from 'reply' (sender-only) and adding specific behavior about removing own addresses from Cc and dropping duplicates. This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation from siblings.

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 usage for replying to all recipients and references 'reply' for shared draft/confirmation rules, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'reply' or 'forward'. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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