send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects (e.g., email sent permanently, saved to sent folder), authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with zero parameters, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It earns its place but does not fully cover what the agent needs to know.

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 the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters) and no output schema, the description could be complete, but it lacks critical information about how the email is composed. The agent is left wondering how to specify recipients, subject, and body.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds the verb 'compose and send,' which provides context beyond the empty schema, though it does not explain how the email is constructed (likely from context or defaults).

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 'Compose and send a new email' clearly states the action and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explain how to provide email content (e.g., recipients, subject, body), leaving some ambiguity despite a clean verb-resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like reply_email or outlook_send_email. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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