forward_email

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, explaining the forwarded email format, subject prefix, and attachment behavior. It's transparent about the action's effects but could include more on side effects (e.g., sending immediately).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and packs all essential behavioral details. Every part is relevant and concise.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description adequately covers input behavior for a common action. It would benefit from mentioning error conditions or that forwarding duplicates the email, but the given information is sufficient for an agent.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that includeAttachments defaults true, comment appears above forwarded content, and explains the structure of to/cc recipients. It complements the schema effectively.

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 action (Forward an email) with specific details (quoted original body, 'Fwd:' subject, optional attachments and comment). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_email and create_draft.

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 implies the tool is for forwarding emails but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use or avoid it relative to alternatives. No explicit when-not or alternative tool references are given.

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