forward_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether the original email is marked as forwarded, whether the action is irreversible), authentication needs, or rate limits. The minimal return description does not compensate.

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: a single-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. No redundant text. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context like whether forwarding sends immediately or drafts, what happens if multiple emails match the keyword, or any confirmation steps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and usage notes (e.g., 'comma-separated for multiple' for 'to', 'cc', 'bcc'; 'Keyword to search for' for 'subject_keyword'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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's action: 'Forward an email to one or more recipients.' This verb-object structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_email (creating new) and reply_to_email (replying to a message).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where forwarding is preferred over composing or replying, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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