spraay_notify_email

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.003 USDC), which is beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context on supported fields but could mention idempotency or error behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by features and cost. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (send email), the description covers purpose, features, and cost. The output schema is present but not needed for completeness. Could mention if HTML is allowed (schema says plain text or HTML) but it's in parameter description.

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 100%, so the schema itself describes all parameters. The description adds value by summarizing supported features (subject, CC, reply-to) and the cost, which is not in the schema.

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 an email notification via AgentMail, specifies use cases (payment confirmations, alerts, receipts, general communication), and lists supported features (subject, CC, reply-to). This distinguishes it from siblings like spraay_notify_sms.

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 provides clear use cases and notes the cost, implying when to use (for notifications) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The distinction from SMS is implicit via naming.

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