send_email

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

无注解，因此描述需完全承担行为披露的责任。它没有说明权限、发送后可达性、速率限制或撤销可能性。对于包含 3 个参数的修改工具，是一个很大的缺口。

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?

结构清晰但有些啰嗦，重复“邮件”概念。参数列表比需要更冗长，虽然引言简短。

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?

对于包含 3 个必需参数的修改工具，没有注解、没有输出模式、0% 模式覆盖率，描述严重不足。它未能涵盖基本行为或使用上下文。

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?

模式描述覆盖率为 0%，因此参数必须在描述中补偿。描述为每个参数提供了简短标签（to, subject, body），这略有帮助，但缺乏格式、约束或验证细节。

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?

明确指出了动词+资源（发送电子邮件），与 list_emails 和 delete_email 等兄弟工具区分开来。然而，它没有描述作用域或任何与兄弟工具的区别，只是陈述了功能。

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?

没有指导说明何时使用此工具而非替代方案。没有提及先决条件、上下文或与 list_emails/delete_email 相关的条件。

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