scope_clarification_email

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the output is a short, confidence-building email with 2–4 questions, and explicitly states it does not count against the monthly draft limit. This gives useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'write email' statement.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states the primary function, second provides context, third describes the output, fourth adds a behavioral benefit. No fluff and front-loaded with essential information.

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 simple email generation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input purpose and output nature (short email with targeted questions). It doesn't detail the exact email format, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how `missing_info` should be formatted (e.g., 'budget range, number of pages') and that `context` is optional but shows attentiveness. This extends the schema's documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a professional email to request missing info before quoting. It contrasts with alternatives ('guessing' or 'sending demands'), which distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools that may serve different email needs.

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?

Usage is implied: when you need info before quoting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from other email tools in the sibling list (e.g., brief_confirmation_email, scope_change_email). Adding a 'use this when... not when...' would improve clarity.

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