forward_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions that a quote block is automatically generated and specifies the email_id format, but it does not disclose whether the email is immediately sent versus creating a draft, whether additional recipients are validated, or what side effects occur.

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 purpose, then adds the quoting behavior and the critical email_id format. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 provides the most critical invocation detail (email_id format) and a key behavioral trait, which is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool versus siblings and does not clarify sending semantics or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 adds crucial meaning for email_id by specifying the folder:uid format with an example, but it does not add semantic guidance for to or body beyond what their names and schema types already convey.

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 action '转发邮件' (forward email) and identifies the resource, with an additional behavioral detail about automatically generating a quoted block. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by name and action, though it does not explicitly call out the difference from reply_email or send_email.

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 about when to use forward_email versus alternatives like reply_email, send_email, or save_draft. The context that a user wants to forward rather than reply or compose is only implied, and no exclusions or selection criteria are stated.

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