Mistral Agents Completion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of streaming, how tool_calls in messages are handled, or that the agent's configured prompt/tools are applied server-side. It is essentially a restatement of the title.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally ideal for a tool whose schema carries most detail. It is arguably too terse for the complexity of the nested messages array, but nothing in it is redundant.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back (completion text, finish reason, token usage, emitted tool calls) and it does not. For a tool with four parameters, a nested message array, and tool-calling semantics, the definition is materially 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 description coverage is 100% (every parameter, including the nested message and tool_call objects, is typed and documented), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning, e.g. it does not explain that 'messages' follows the standard role/content convention or how existing tool_calls should be echoed back.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run completions') and resource ('pre-configured Mistral Agents'), which differentiates it from plain completion siblings like mistral_chat_completion and mistral_fim_completion by the agent indirection. However, it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that agent_id must come from mistral_list_agents or mistral_create_agent), and never names an alternative such as mistral_chat_completion for stateless prompting. The choice between agent-backed and plain completions is left entirely to inference.

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