send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends emails but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what constitutes '发送结果信息' (sending result information). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by categorized parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose. The bilingual nature (Chinese purpose, English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but doesn't significantly impact utility.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers basic functionality and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. Given the complexity and zero annotation coverage, it should provide more operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 7 parameters in Chinese with clear explanations. It specifies which are optional, provides content_type enum values ('plain' vs 'html'), and clarifies parameter purposes. However, it doesn't explain format details like attachment path requirements or email address validation.

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 tool's purpose: '发送完整邮件（支持多个收件人、附件、CC、BCC）' which translates to 'Send complete email (supports multiple recipients, attachments, CC, BCC)'. This specifies the verb ('send') and resource ('complete email') with feature highlights. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_simple_email' or 'send_email_with_custom_config'.

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 its siblings ('send_simple_email', 'send_email_with_custom_config'). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternative scenarios, or comparative context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter list alone.

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