Gửi thử thông báo email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the action sends a sample/test notification to recipients already verified within a config, which is a meaningful side-effect warning since these are not arbitrary addresses. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but the core behavior and target are explicit.

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 entry is a single bilingual sentence with no filler; the verb and recipient constraint come first, making it easy to scan. Both languages carry the same content, but this is a deliberate bilingual format rather than redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, who is targeted (verified recipients), and how it is scoped (via a config). It could add expected results or error conditions, but the essential selection and invocation information is present.

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%, and the single config_id parameter is already described as 'UUID cấu hình email'. The description adds 'in a config' but no new syntax, format, or value semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('test notification'/'email mẫu') and the recipient scope ('verified recipients in a config'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling test tools such as monapay_test_webhook and monapay_test_zalo_group, and 'test/sample' signals it is not a production send.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The word 'test' implies the tool is for validating an email config, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this over related send/test tools such as mail_send or monapay_test_webhook.

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