reply_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool sends the reply immediately, requires authentication, or modifies the original email. No side effects or safety info.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; more details are needed to make it useful.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description provides no information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The single parameter is opaque, making the tool definition incomplete for practical use.

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 schema has one parameter, 'kwargs', with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify what 'kwargs' expects or how to structure it, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.

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 'Reply to an email' clearly states the action (reply) and resource (email), differentiating it from siblings like forward_email or create_draft. However, it does not specify whether it replies to all recipients or just the sender, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forward_email or send_draft. No prerequisites or context (e.g., must have an existing email thread) are mentioned.

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