email_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions automatic retry with exponential backoff, but lacks details on success/failure responses, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently convey the main function and key features, then a second sentence adds retry behavior. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers core features but omits details like the 'from' override, required 'subject' parameter, or how attachments are handled. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 40%; the description adds context by listing supported features (HTML, plain text, to/cc/bcc, attachments, headers, Reply-To), mapping to several parameters. However, it does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 '寄送郵件' (send email) and lists supported features, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is the only send tool among siblings, so differentiation is inherent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While siblings have different functions, the description does not mention when not to use this tool or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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