assistantmail_send_email_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It says the tool 'provides' endpoint and headers, which hints at a read-only reference operation, but it does not clarify whether it makes a network call, returns static documentation, requires authentication, or has any 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 a single sentence with no filler, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices meaningful content; it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description needed to clarify the return value, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. It only gives a minimal hint about 'endpoint and required headers' and leaves critical operational questions unanswered.

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 needed to explain the mailboxId parameter but never mentions it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no guidance on what the ID represents, where to obtain it, or how it relates to the returned endpoint and 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 names a specific resource ('AssistantMail REST endpoint and required headers') and ties it to email send requests, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never states whether this tool actually sends emails or merely returns reference information, leaving the core action ambiguous relative to the sibling assistantmail_send_email.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this reference tool versus assistantmail_send_email or any other sibling. The phrase 'for email send requests' implies a connection to sending, but the description does not state that this tool should be used to retrieve endpoint/header details before calling the actual send tool.

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