client_waiting_email

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 discloses the tone (factual, non-accusatory) and a benefit (no draft count), but does not describe the output format, whether it sends the email, or any side effects. The behavior is mostly clear as a text generator, but details are missing.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then tone, then benefit. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the use case and tone but does not explain the return value (presumably the email text). With no output schema, the agent might need explicit indication of what the tool returns. While the complexity is low, the lack of return specification is a minor gap.

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% and schema descriptions are already clear. The description adds useful context, e.g., that 'days_waiting' calibrates tone, which is not in the schema. This extra meaning justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 it writes a professional email to a client who hasn't delivered promised items, blocking the project. It distinguishes from many siblings by specifying the client's delay as the cause, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other client-facing emails like 'client_check_in_email' or 'client_followup', so a 4 is appropriate.

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 when to use (project blocked by client delay) and sets tone expectations, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For a tool among many similar email templates, this is a gap.

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