new_chat

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful non-obvious behavior: the handle is temporary until first send, after which a permanent chat_url is obtained. However, it does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or whether creating a new chat affects an existing active chat.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, while the return-handle lifecycle is provided in the second. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key lifecycle detail. However, it leaves title_hint unexplained, does not clarify what 'configured project' and 'configured model' depend on, and lacks guidance about sending or managing the created chat. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, title_hint, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention title_hint at all, so the agent gets no guidance on its purpose, format, or behavior. The schema only reveals it is a nullable string, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open a new conversation inside the configured project and select the configured model.' It clearly identifies this as creating a new chat rather than opening an existing one, which distinguishes it from siblings like open_chat and list_chats.

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 clear context that this tool is for starting a new conversation, and the 'new' qualifier implies when to use it versus alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the intended usage is evident enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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