Reply all

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive. Description adds 'threading preserved' and 'excluding yourself', which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose and key behavioral notes without any fluff.

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 the core reply-all behavior well. No output schema or auth details needed given the tool's nature. Optional parameters (folder, server) are not mentioned but schema covers them. Simple tool, adequate completeness.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about parameters beyond what schema provides; 'threading preserved' is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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?

Clearly states it replies to all recipients (sender + To/Cc, excluding self) with threading. Distinguishes from sibling email_reply (which likely only replies to sender) and email_send (new email).

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?

Implies when to use vs. alternatives: use for reply-all, not for reply-to-sender or new email. However, no explicit 'when not to use' or direct mention of alternatives.

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