arvan_notify_email

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions SMTP settings fallback to environment variables, but does not disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication details, or error handling. Given annotations, the bar is lowered, but more information would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. Every word adds value, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes critical fallback information in the second sentence.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (e.g., success/failure), parameter constraints, or error scenarios. The env var fallback is helpful but incomplete for a tool with this many parameters.

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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely references SMTP settings but does not explain individual parameters like 'to', 'subject', 'body', 'from_addr', or 'use_tls'. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Send an email via SMTP,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arvan_notify_slack, arvan_notify_telegram, and arvan_notify_webhook by focusing on 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?

While the purpose is clear and sibling names differentiate tools, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use email versus other notification channels or any prerequisites. No when-not or alternative hints are provided.

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