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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that this tool returns immediately without waiting, which is not fully captured by the annotations. The annotations indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description aligns with this by framing it as an initiation action. The queuing behavior and immediate return add transparency beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, two sentences providing clear purpose and next steps. Every word earns its place, and the key call-to-action (immediate return, follow with other tools) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it does, when it returns, and how to proceed. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage and are typical omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool 'start_chat' opens a chat with the Crevio agent and queues a run, specifying the non-blocking behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned chat_id is for use with send_message, setting it apart from other run-related tools.

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 provides clear usage guidance by instructing to 'Follow the run with wait_for_run or get_run', which indicates when each tool should be used. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus others, but the flow is clearly outlined.

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