batch_send

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 does add useful constraints: max 20 per batch, rate limits, and empty-to rejection. However, it does not mention what happens on partial failure, whether the entire batch is rejected if one address is invalid, or any retry/idempotency behavior, which are important for a batch operation.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core operation, then attaches the most important operational limits in parentheses. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 batch tool with three parameters, the description covers the main operational constraints (batch size, rate limits, required non-empty recipients). An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here. The main omission is failure-handling behavior, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for basic agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'to' cannot be empty and that subject/body are shared template fields ('同模板'). It does not detail the format of 'to' items or any other parameter-specific expectations beyond the empty check, leaving some semantic 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 explicitly states '同模板批量发送' (same-template batch send), naming a specific verb (batch send), resource (emails), and key distinguishing trait (same template). This separates it from single-send tools like send_email without needing to open the schema.

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 constraints such as a maximum of 20 per batch, sending frequency limits, and a rejection of empty 'to' lists. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over send_email, schedule_send, or reply_email, leaving the usage selection somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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