reply_to_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains parameter effects (send vs mode, reply_to_all) and return value, but does not cover edge cases like multiple matching emails or error scenarios. Good coverage of typical behavior.

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 efficient with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter block is somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded and well-structured for scanning.

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 9 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, the description covers input parameters thoroughly. It mentions return value, but lacks details on error handling or matching behavior. An output schema exists, reducing need for return value details. Fairly complete for a complex tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with examples (e.g., attachments file paths), defaults, and overrides (mode overrides send). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema property types.

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 replies to an email identified by a subject keyword. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like compose_email or forward_email by focusing on replying to an existing 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?

The description implies usage for replying to emails but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks mention of alternatives or prerequisites, such as needing to locate an email first, though the purpose is clear from the name.

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