Send Email

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

Annotations indicate false for readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description acknowledges idempotency by stating 'Repeated calls may resend.' It also describes the action as dispatching a message and returning a confirmation. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, but lacks details on side effects or error handling.

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 composed of several informative sentences without unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides additional context (use case, required parameters, API details). It could be slightly more succinct but achieves good clarity.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that include openWorldHint=true, the description could provide more context about the response format, authorization requirements, or potential side effects. It mentions 'returns a confirmation' but lacks specifics. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter's purpose. The description lists required parameters but does not add new semantic details beyond what is in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value in this area.

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 states: 'Sends an email with an associated Specification Section Revision.' This clearly specifies the verb (sends), resource (email), and the context (Specification Section Revision). It distinguishes this tool from general email sending by linking it specifically to spec revisions.

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 says 'Use this to dispatch the notification or message related to Specifications.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It also notes that repeated calls may resend, which is a useful caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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