send_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'send email' and does not mention side effects (e.g., email is irrevocably sent), required prior configuration, authentication needs, or handling of failures. The mutation-like nature of sending is implied by the name, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 short—only four Chinese characters—which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place because it adds negligible value over the tool name. A useful description would include at least one sentence on purpose or usage, so the brevity is a deficiency.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about prerequisites, expected return values, or when to use it. An agent cannot determine whether an email account must be set up first, what happens on success or failure, or how html relates to text. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 all seven parameters have meaningful Chinese descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents each field (to, cc, subject, html, text, attachments, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 '发送邮件' is a direct translation of the tool name 'send_email' and adds no new semantic information. It restates the name rather than specifying what the tool actually does, which is a tautology. While it conveys the general action of sending email, it fails to clarify scope or distinguish behavior beyond the name itself.

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 this tool versus alternatives like setup_email_account or configure_email_server. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having a configured email account, nor does it exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate. There is no context or comparison to siblings.

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