reply_email

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It does disclose useful side effects: it adds RFC headers and quotes the original. But it does not clarify whether the reply is sent immediately or saved as a draft, nor mention permissions or side effects beyond composing the reply.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately specifies the distinguishing details.

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?

The description is enough to know the core behavior but lacks several cues an agent would want for a mutating email action: whether it sends immediately, how it interacts with send_email/create_draft, and what the return result indicates. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves important context implicit.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter; per the baseline, 3 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but it does contextualize that the reply includes the original message and proper threading headers.

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 states a specific verb ('yanıt verir' / replies) on a concrete resource (an incoming email), and adds distinctive behavior: RFC-compliant headers (In-Reply-To, References, Re:) and original quoting. This clearly differentiates it from generic send_email or create_draft.

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 phrase 'Gelen bir e-postaya' implies the tool is for replying to an existing email, which is some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer reply_email over send_email/create_draft, nor gives any exclusions or alternative routing.

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