observe_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a write operation ([WRITE]) with medium risk, and outlines the flow (scan, policy-gate, record, run). However, it does not specify what happens when the policy blocks the chat (e.g., error vs. silent failure) or what exactly is recorded (e.g., usage log details). Additional behavioral context, such as side effects or authorization needs, would improve transparency.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose summary followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return values (e.g., model response, block status). It omits output expectations. Also, error handling or side effects of the recording are not mentioned. While parameters are well-covered, the overall user journey (what the agent gets back) is incomplete.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so for all 6: model (model to run), messages (OpenAI-style format), agent/user (actor attribution), block_threshold (threshold for blocking), target (Ollama target, omit for default). This adds rich functional meaning beyond schema field names and defaults.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Scan + policy-gate a chat exchange, record it, then run if allowed.' It distinctly differs from siblings like scan_prompt (scan only) and guarded_generate (generation with guard) by combining scanning, policy enforcement, recording, and execution in one step.

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 implies usage: use when you want to run a chat through policy checks before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., scan_prompt for just scanning, guarded_generate for generation without recording). Usage context is merely implied.

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