Send a test 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 discloses that the tool performs a sending side effect, is superuser-only, and depends on SMTP being configured. It does not mention what the response looks like or any logging side effects, but the core behavior is made clear.

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 three short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives required choices and constraints. The template list is slightly redundant with the schema, but it is useful context and does not hurt conciseness.

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 simple tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, permissions, and template options. It does not describe the return value or confirm that an email is actually delivered, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so a small completeness gap remains.

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%, so the schema already documents toEmail, template, and collection. The description repeats the allowed template values but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sends a test email for the purpose of verifying SMTP configuration. It names the specific resource and action, and this differentiates it from the only structurally similar sibling, test_s3. The template choices are also explicitly enumerated.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to verify SMTP configuration, requires SMTP to be configured, and is restricted to superusers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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