compose_email_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates drafts and never sends, which implies read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in email handling.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (never sends), making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, it's incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses parameter semantics and broader behavioral context, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'context' or 'tone' parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they influence the reply generation. This leaves two parameters undocumented beyond their schema types.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'email reply draft', specifying it's for drafting rather than sending. It distinguishes from siblings like gmail_create_draft by focusing on reply generation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with summarize_email or meeting_brief for content creation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over gmail_create_draft for replies, summarize_email for summarization, or other content tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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