reply_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two behaviors (auto-generating quoted block and filling recipient) but is silent on whether the reply is actually sent or merely prepared as a draft, and it does not describe side effects, errors, or permission requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating email 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 sentence with no filler: it states the core purpose, the key behavior, and the one non-obvious parameter format. It is concise but not structured into explicit sections, which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify expected return values and side effects. It does not explain whether the email is sent immediately or saved as a draft, nor does it route the agent to sibling tools such as send_email or save_draft. The description is too thin for a tool with side effects and three parameters.

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?

The description adds real value for email_id by specifying the folder:uid format with an example (INBOX:1), which the schema does not provide. However, it does not add any meaning for the body or cc parameters beyond their names and types, so it only partially compensates for the schema's low description coverage.

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 opens with '回复邮件' (reply email), clearly stating the verb and resource, and adds the distinctive behavior '自动生成引用块并填收件人' (automatically generate quoted block and fill recipient), which separates it from a plain send_email. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'reply' and by the instruction that email_id must reference an existing message in folder:uid format. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email or save_draft, nor any exclusion criteria.

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