get_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool is non-blocking and explains index semantics and reply_format options. However, it does not describe behavior when no reply is available, whether chat refers to the active chat, or what happens with invalid indices or formats.

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 compact: one action sentence followed by two terse parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose 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?

For a simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but still leaves gaps. It covers non-blocking behavior, index semantics, and output format selection, but does not define what chat should be, what happens when no reply exists, or the shape of the returned 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains index ('-1 is the newest') and enumerates reply_format values, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. The required chat parameter is left undefined, though its name suggests a chat identifier.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('assistant reply'), and the phrase 'without waiting' immediately distinguishes it from a blocking sibling like wait. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternative sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'without waiting' gives a clear usage context: use this when you want to fetch a reply without blocking. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like wait or save_reply, but the implied guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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