forward_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the quoting behavior and does not disclose whether the email is sent immediately, whether a sent copy is created, how attachments are handled, or what side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of needed operational detail.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and many sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. The output schema may explain return values, but pre-call behavior and accounting for defaults remain unexplained.

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 0% for 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining what uid, to, body, account, or mailbox mean or how they interact. The agent gains no parameter meaning beyond the bare names.

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') and a distinguishing detail ('with the original content quoted'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate forwarding from closely related sibling tools like reply_email or send_email.

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 is provided about when to use forwarding versus replying, sending, or saving a draft. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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