send_simple_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends emails but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a synchronous operation. The description lacks critical details needed for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation tool with potential side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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's complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns: 发送结果信息'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling. The output schema likely details return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall gaps remain for safe usage.

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. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose in Chinese: 'receiver_email' as '收件人邮箱地址' (recipient email address), 'subject' as '邮件主题' (email subject), 'content' as '邮件内容（纯文本或HTML）' (email content, plain text or HTML), and 'content_type' with enum values 'plain' and 'html'. This clarifies semantics effectively, though it doesn't cover format details like email validation or content length limits.

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: '发送简单邮件（单个收件人，无附件）' which translates to 'Send simple email (single recipient, no attachments)'. This specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('email'), and key constraints ('simple', 'single recipient', 'no attachments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' and 'send_email_with_custom_config' by emphasizing simplicity and limitations, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context through the constraints '单个收件人，无附件' (single recipient, no attachments), suggesting this tool is for basic email needs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_email' or 'send_email_with_custom_config', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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