send_email

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait: the tool requires user confirmation before sending. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. With no annotations, this is moderate transparency.

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 has three sentences, but the second sentence ('ensures secure and accurate delivery') is generic and could be removed. The confirmation requirement is useful but mixed with 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 basic usage and confirmation requirement but omits return values, attachment limits, and validation details. Adequate for a simple mailing tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 parameters are well-defined. The description clarifies attachments expect file names, adding value. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 sends emails with subject, body, and receiver. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_attachments' by focusing on sending rather than searching. However, it lacks an explicit contrast statement.

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 on when to use or avoid this tool. It mentions 'ideal for automating email workflows' but provides no exclusion conditions or comparisons with alternatives.

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