send-sandbox-email

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations only indicate destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), the description clarifies that emails go to a 'test inbox' and won't reach actual recipients, which is crucial for understanding the tool's testing/simulation behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (sandbox mode, test inbox, no delivery) with zero wasted words. Every element serves a clear purpose in distinguishing this tool's behavior.

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 tool with good annotations (destructiveHint=false) and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about the sandbox/testing behavior. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by clarifying the test inbox destination. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('send an email') and resource ('in sandbox mode to a test inbox'), with explicit differentiation from normal email sending ('without delivering to your recipients'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'send-email' tool by specifying the sandbox/testing context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('in sandbox mode to a test inbox') and when not to use it ('without delivering to your recipients'), providing clear context for testing versus production email sending. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'send-email' tool for actual delivery.

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