email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists actions and hints at self-discovery, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., send modifies state), rate limits, or error handling.

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 very concise (two sentences) with no unnecessary words. The format is straightforward, though it could benefit from a clearer separation of actions or a more structured list.

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 tool's complexity (14 sub-actions) and minimal schema documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what each action does, return values, or how to use the 'params' argument. The agent would be left guessing without further calls.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by enumerating valid values for 'action', but the 'params' parameter remains completely undocumented. The hint to discover parameters is useful but not sufficient.

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 indicates it's an email client (IMAP/SMTP) and lists 14 specific actions, so the agent knows the tool handles various email operations. It's not a single verb+resource but a dispatcher, which is clear from the action list.

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 suggests calling with just 'action' to discover parameters, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives or specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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