analyze_email

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 clearly indicates an analytical, read-only operation ('analiz eder') and lists what it extracts, but it does not mention side effects, input limitations, or any requirements (e.g., language, size, handling of attachments). It is neither misleading nor deeply transparent.

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 that states the core function and then provides a concise, scannable list of outputs. Every item in the list adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the enumerated analysis dimensions serve as the output contract and cover most of what an agent needs to know about the result. The description does not explicitly explain the relationship between uid/folder and subject/bodyText, but the schema descriptions already cover that, and the overall definition is sufficiently complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (uid, folder, subject, bodyText), including the distinction between reading from a mailbox and analyzing raw text. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Bir e-postanın içeriğini derinlemesine analiz eder') and then enumerates concrete analysis dimensions (urgency, intent, tone, action items, dates, money amounts, summary, phishing/spam). This level of detail clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_email (retrieval only) or triage_inbox (prioritization).

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 the tool is for deep content analysis but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. An agent can infer context from the stated capabilities, but the description does not provide explicit routing compared to siblings such as read_email or extract_calendar_event.

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