send_test_email

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

The description discloses that the tool actually sends an email (consistent with destructiveHint annotation), and mentions it is a 'minimal diagnostic email'. It also states what it returns (transport debug info and delivery status). While it could elaborate on side effects, it adds useful context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, return information, and alternatives. It is nearly complete; only minor details about failure behavior are missing but not critical given the return info.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'optional custom test body' aligning with the customMessage parameter but does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sends a minimal diagnostic email to confirm credentials and connectivity. It distinguishes from siblings like send_email and get_connection_status by specifying its diagnostic purpose and recommending use before 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?

Explicitly says when to use (before relying on send_email in a new environment) and when not to (prefer get_connection_status for a connectivity check without sending mail). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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