send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens on failure, whether emails are queued or sent immediately, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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?

While extremely concise with just two characters, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide the necessary context for a tool with 7 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and minimal purpose clarification beyond the tool name itself.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with Chinese descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 '发送邮件' (Send email) is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese. While it clearly indicates the general action, it lacks specificity about what resources or capabilities are involved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_email_server' or 'get_recent_emails'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for email operations (configure_email_server, get_email_content, get_recent_emails, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific send_email tool is appropriate versus those other tools.

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