reply_to_email

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

Despite no annotations, the description details key behaviors: mode overrides send parameter, reply_to_all toggles recipients, body_html allows rich formatting requiring fallback text, and from_address specifies sender selection. It also notes the return of a confirmation message. This sufficiently covers behavioral traits.

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 structured as a clear bulleted list with parameter descriptions, making it easy to scan. While it is lengthy due to many parameters, each sentence serves a purpose. A slight reduction in verbosity could improve 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?

The description covers all parameters and return value (confirmation message), given the presence of an output schema. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., account validity), but for a straightforward reply tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description provides thorough explanations for all 11 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning to names like 'cc', 'bcc', 'attachments', and clarifying default values and interactions (e.g., mode overrides send). This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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 'Reply to an email matching a subject keyword,' which specifies the action (reply), resource (email), and selection method (subject keyword). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compose_email' (create new) and 'forward_email' (forward).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to reply to an identified email), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'compose_email' for new messages. Given many siblings, clearer guidance would improve this.

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