pre_send_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool runs an AI review and surfaces issues, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is straightforward but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the action and resource; second sentence lists what it surfaces. Highly concise and efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return format. It says 'surfaces' issues but does not specify the response structure (e.g., list of issues with severity, suggestions). Also lacks mention of error conditions like invalid HTML. Adequate but incomplete for a review tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of surfaced issues (tone, links, alt text, etc.), which indirectly informs the purpose of inputs but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Minimal 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 action ('Run an AI pre-send review'), the resource ('email's HTML'), and the context ('before sending'). It also lists specific surfaced issues (tone, broken links, alt text, spam, accessibility), distinguishing it from siblings like send_email or render_email_content.

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 implies usage context with 'before sending', indicating it's a pre-send check. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., render_email_content for previewing). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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