test_send

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

Discloses deterministic simulation, no reputation impact, and returns email ID for inspection. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and description adds context beyond them.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, options, return value. Efficient, front-loaded, no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameter count, schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, return value, and constraints. No gaps identified.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the return value and that from/subject have defaults, and the outcome parameter's purpose is reinforced.

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 validates sending setup using sandbox addresses, simulating outcomes without reputation damage. It distinguishes from siblings like send_email (real sending) and inspect_email (inspection).

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 implies using this tool for testing without harming reputation, and allows choosing outcomes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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