reply_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the message is sent immediately unless draft=true, that it quotes the original, that it is threaded, and that local file attachments are supported. This gives an agent a strong mental model of the tool's side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: first the recipient/thread/quote behavior, then the send/draft and attachment behavior. There is no filler.

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 covers the essential behavior of the tool well, including side effects and key options. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention what return value or confirmation an agent should expect after sending, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 six parameters fully. The description adds some context around draft behavior and attachments, but it does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a precise action: reply to a message and everyone on it, with the recipient scope explicitly defined as sender plus all other recipients excluding the user. It also clarifies threading and quoting behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'reply' and 'forward'.

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 makes the intended use clear by specifying the full recipient list and the immediate-send behavior unless draft=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use reply for sender-only', but the recipient-scope language effectively implies when this tool is appropriate.

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