schedule_followup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing that the tool 'automatically generates a contextual follow-up message,' which is non-obvious. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the email is sent immediately, if it can be edited before sending, or what happens if a reply arrives before the scheduled send. This is a partial disclosure.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and context. Every word earns its place, with no filler or duplication of schema information.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple scheduling tool with clear parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a key side effect (auto-generating the message). However, it does not mention return values or post-scheduling behavior, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including 'ID of the original email to follow up on' and 'Days after original email to send followup'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Schedule'), resource ('follow-up email'), and specific context ('for an outreach that hasn't received a reply'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'schedule_email' by specifying the follow-up on non-replied outreach, and from 'generate_email' by the scheduling aspect.

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 phrase 'for an outreach that hasn't received a reply' provides clear usage context, implying when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but is still effective.

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