Send email

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not explain behavioral traits such as side effects, return value, or error conditions. Given no annotations beyond safety hints, the description should provide more context.

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 (one sentence), but it lacks substance. It is front-loaded, but the brevity means it does not convey enough information to be useful.

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?

With 9 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent lacks essential information to correctly invoke the tool for various use cases.

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?

The schema has only 11% description coverage (only 'server' field has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters, so meaning beyond schema names is absent. Many parameters (e.g., html, text, inReplyTo) require additional context.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'email', indicating a generic send operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like email_reply or email_save_draft, which could cause confusion about when to use this tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no hints about prerequisites, context, or comparisons to other email-related tools.

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