Ask configured chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions streaming default true but does not disclose whether the tool creates sessions (though 'new_session' parameter hints at it) or any other side effects. Basic information is present but lacks depth.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and key differentiator. Every word serves a purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for basic usage but fails to specify the return format or behavior of streaming. It covers the tool's role but leaves some practical questions unanswered.

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%, so the schema already defines parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 states it is a one-step QA tool that asks a question in the preconfigured RAGFlow chat assistant. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly noting no dataset_id, chat_id, or session_id is required, making its purpose and scope very clear.

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 positions this as the 'preferred one-step QA tool' and implies it is for users who do not have specific IDs, guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative siblings like 'chat' or 'create_chat'.

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