send_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the return value (True if sent without error), but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral characteristics typical of an email-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 a clean docstring format: a brief purpose line, a parameter list with descriptions, and a return value. Every line is functional and contributes to understanding, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 all parameters and the return value, and an output schema likely exists. However, it lacks usage context, exclusions, and alternative guidance, which is important given no annotations and the presence of closely related sibling tools. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but leaves gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by providing concise explanations for all 7 parameters, e.g., 'Brödtext i klartext' for body and 'Valfri HTML-version' for body_html. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though some explanations are terse.

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 states 'Skicka ett e-post' (send an email), clearly indicating a send operation with a list of parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_to_email and forward_email by its name and focus on composing a new email, but it does not explicitly state this differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_to_email or forward_email. It is purely a parameter and return documentation with no contextual usage instructions.

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