test_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool sends a test email but omits details such as side effects (email actually sent), failure conditions, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This lack of transparency limits the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 that directly and succinctly communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant information and is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete in stating the purpose. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., SMTP must be configured), expected outcomes (e.g., returns success/failure message), and how the test email is delivered. This leaves some gaps for the agent.

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 tool description does not mention the parameter, but the input schema provides a clear description for the 'to' field ('Recipient email address for the test email'). Since the schema already conveys the parameter meaning, the tool description adds no additional value, yet this is acceptable given schema coverage. A 3 reflects neutral performance.

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 tool's purpose: sending a test email to verify SMTP configuration in Metabase. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('SMTP configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure_email and clear_email.

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 (verifying SMTP configuration) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it could benefit from noting that SMTP must be configured first.

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