forward_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 does disclose the forwarding behavior (Fwd prefix and quoting), but lacks details on side effects such as whether the original email is modified, attachment handling, or permission requirements.

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 concise, with a brief summary followed by a tight argument list. Each sentence provides meaningful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 core purpose, behavior, and all parameters, and an output schema exists to define return values. It lacks explicit alternatives or edge-case information, but is reasonably complete for a simple forward operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing a one-line explanation for each parameter: uid, to, body, and mailbox, including default for mailbox and optionality for body. However, it could clarify the expected format of uid and how multiple 'to' addresses are handled.

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 action (forward an email) and the behavioral specifics (sets Fwd: prefix and quotes the original), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email and reply_to_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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over reply_to_email or send_email, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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