@git-fabric/chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new session and returns a sessionId, which is basic behavioral info. However, it misses details like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or if the session is persistent, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new chat session with Claude') and efficiently lists optional parameters in a single sentence. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying purpose and output without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 has 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and output (sessionId), but for a creation tool, it should ideally mention more about behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing optional parameters (system prompt, project tag, model, title) but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as usage examples or constraints.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new chat session with Claude'), specifying it's for initiating a conversation. It distinguishes from siblings like chat_session_get (retrieve), chat_session_list (list), and chat_session_delete (remove), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 context by mentioning it 'Returns the sessionId to use in subsequent calls,' implying this is an initial setup step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like chat_thread_fork (for branching) or chat_session_archive (for storage), and no exclusions are stated, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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