email_respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool sends an email (a consequential, irreversible action), nor does it discuss permissions, delivery semantics, or failure handling. The description is purely functional and lacks transparency about side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It gives a basic orientation but does not offer guidance on complex behaviors like reply-all vs forward, attachment handling, or account selection, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 description does not need to explain parameters in detail. The description adds only high-level context ('reply', 'forward') that aligns with the schema's parameter definitions, providing no extra semantic value beyond 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 a specific action ('Reply to or forward') on a specific resource ('an existing email'), and the phrase 'existing email' helps distinguish from sending a new email. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like email_send, so it lacks full differentiation.

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: 'continue email conversations, respond to messages, or forward information to others.' This gives context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like email_send for composing new emails.

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