Répondre à un mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: default draft creation (envoyer=false), inclusion of original thread/recipient/subject, and the effect of repondre_a_tous. It does not mention return values, error handling, or authorization needs, but covers the primary behavioral traits well.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second clarifies the default behavior and the a_tous option. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main use case, default behavior, and the optional a_tous. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error conditions, but for a reply tool this is adequate.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value over the schema. It echoes the repondre_a_tous parameter's effect and the envoyer default, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already explains. 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's purpose: replying to an email by its ID, with specific behaviors like copying the thread, recipient, and subject with 'Re:'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creer_brouillon (creating a fresh draft) or transferer_mail (forwarding), as it explicitly handles replying.

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 an existing email, mentioning the default draft creation and the option to send directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creer_brouillon or envoyer_mail, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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