send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as sending (a write action), but gives no details about delivery semantics, side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. This is minimal transparency beyond the bare function.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the core function with no wasted words. However, it is very sparse and could have included more useful context while remaining concise. It is appropriately sized but not rich in information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more operational context, but it only gives a one-line purpose. An agent would not know if the email is sent immediately, what the return value is, or any constraints or side effects. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is largely missing.

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 all seven parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning the recipient, which is already covered by the 'to' parameter. This is the baseline score for well-covered schemas.

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 clear verb and resource: 'sends a new email' to specified recipients. It is distinguishable from siblings like reply_email by the word 'new', though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not go beyond the basic function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_email or create_draft. The description only says what it does, not when it should be preferred. No prerequisites or situational context are provided.

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