send_verification_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sequencing prerequisite, but nothing about rate limits/cooldowns, code expiry, single-use semantics, or whether re-sending invalidates a prior code — all material for a code-dispatch tool with 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the usage condition in a compact parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be split for clarity and no return/error expectations are hinted at.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a prerequisite dispatch tool the core workflow hint is present, but the absence of annotation coverage leaves behavioral details (expiry, throttling, reuse) undocumented anywhere.

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 0% and the only field is an untyped-in-prose 'email' string. The description adds that the email is the destination address ('向指定邮箱'), but no format, validation, or multi-recipient constraints — a modest gain over the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: send a verification code to a given email. The parenthetical clarifies its role as a prerequisite to registration/login, which separates it from siblings like register_or_login, though it does not name that sibling directly.

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?

Explicitly says it must be called before register/login, giving a clear trigger condition. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the follow-up tool (register_or_login) that consumes the code, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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