reply_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully specifies the recipient set (sender, To, CC), implicitly excluding BCC. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as sending confirmation, error conditions, or whether the reply includes any default headers. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action and its scope without any filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 relatively simple 4-parameter email action with no output schema, the description combined with the schema covers the core behavior and parameters adequately. It does not explain edge cases or response format, but those are not critical for this tool's simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters (id, body, html, attachments). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('reply') and clearly identifies the resource ('an email') and the scope ('original sender, To, and CC recipients'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'reply' that likely targets only the sender. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to reply to all original recipients. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast it with the sibling 'reply' tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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