garmin_email_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of sending an email, the required SMTP credentials, SSL/STARTTLS behavior, and the HTML/plain-text fallback. This is substantial behavioral context for a sending tool.

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 organized into a purpose line, parameter list, environment variables, and content scope, making it scannable. The only weak point is the trailing all-caps 'FOCUS MORE...' sentence, which is vague and not actionable for tool selection or invocation.

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 tool that connects to SMTP and sends email, the description covers parameters, env prerequisites, content coverage, and message format. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists and can cover that; no critical call-blocking information is obviously missing.

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 input schema only provides types and defaults, but the description fully documents all four parameters: period options and default, end_date format and default, comma-separated recipients, and subject behavior. It also maps defaults to SMTP_TO, which the schema cannot express.

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 action ('Generate a Garmin summary report and email it via SMTP') and names the resource and delivery mechanism. The email/summary content list and SMTP framing distinguish it from sibling reporting tools like garmin_summary_report, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 provides prerequisites (SMTP env vars) and parameter defaults, so an agent knows how to invoke it correctly. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as garmin_summary_report or garmin_daily_summary; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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