chat_via_lucairn

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals PII replacement, provider routing, wire format (Anthropic Messages API), and tier-dependent placeholder handling. It could mention rate limits or error handling, but current coverage is strong.

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 information-dense without fluff. Every sentence adds value, covering key aspects in a logical order. It could be slightly shorter, but it remains concise for the complexity involved.

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 absence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers routing, PII detection, tier behavior, and wire format comprehensively. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining model routing rules, BYOK environment variables, system prompt sanitization policy, and the requirement for max_tokens. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 specifies the tool's function: sending a chat request through the Lucairn privacy gateway with BYOK and PII detection. It distinguishes itself from any sibling tools (none exist) by detailing its unique privacy and cross-provider routing features.

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 explains when to use the tool (chat requests requiring privacy and BYOK) and provides detailed routing rules based on the model parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, as there are no siblings.

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