wirebox_mail_send

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 does disclose that this is a send (mutating) operation and that it originates from the agent's Wirebox mailbox, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication prerequisites, whether the send is immediate, or any error/return behavior. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the context in nine words, earning its place entirely. This is exemplarily concise.

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 send tool with fully described parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and where it operates. However, it omits any mention of return values (no output schema) or side effects beyond the core send action. Given the low complexity and full schema coverage, this is an adequate but not complete definition, so 3.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Following the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is correct.

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 names a specific action ('Send') and resource ('email message') and scopes it to 'this agent's Wirebox mailbox,' which differentiates it from siblings like wirebox_imessage_send (iMessage) and wirebox_mail_list (list). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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 clearly states the context for use: sending an email from the agent's own mailbox. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious, and the description's wording is unambiguous about the email channel. This is clear context without explicit exclusion, which fits the 4-level.

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