send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the mechanism (SMTP) but does not describe side effects, irreversibility, authentication requirements, rate limits, or delivery semantics. This is a minimal statement rather than a behavioral explanation.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core message.

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?

Although the input schema is fully documented, this is a side-effectful send action with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain expected outcomes, failure modes, or when to prefer it over send_local_file, leaving meaningful context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter, including optional cc, bcc, html, reply_to, and attachments, has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Sendet eine E-Mail via SMTP' (sends an email via SMTP). It is specific enough to identify the tool's core purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling send_local_file.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use send_email versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as SMTP configuration or permissions, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the tool name and the one-line action.

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