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 behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a tool that sends emails (a clear side effect), this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 maximally concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core function and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex email-sending tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic functional statement without any of the contextual information needed to use the tool effectively or understand its behavior.

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 only 18% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description provides zero information about parameters. It doesn't mention any of the key parameters (from, to, subject, attachments, etc.) or their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('email') with the specific service ('using SendLayer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling email-sending tools (though none are listed among the actual siblings).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It's a bare statement of function without any contextual usage information that would help an agent decide when this is the appropriate tool to invoke.

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