chatgpt_new_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the core behavior (creating a new chat and setting parameters) but omits potential side effects, such as whether creating a new chat discards the current conversation or how temporary chats are handled beyond the schema. This adds some context beyond the annotations (which are absent) but is not comprehensive.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('创建新的普通或临时对话') and then lists the configurable options. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding but leaves out workflow context. It does not explain what happens after creation, how the returned chat ID or status might be used, or whether the settings persist across messages. The description is adequate for a simple use case but incomplete for an agent needing to integrate with the broader chat workflow.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters. The tool description merely summarizes these parameters ('模式、模型、思考强度和能力档位') without adding new meaning or clarifying parameter interactions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal additional semantic value.

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 the tool's purpose: to create a new regular or temporary conversation while optionally configuring mode, model, thinking level, and answer tier. It uses a specific verb ('创建') and resource ('新对话'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chatgpt_select_mode or chatgpt_set_temporary by being a one-stop combined action.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling setter tools (e.g., chatgpt_select_mode, chatgpt_select_model, chatgpt_set_temporary). It does not mention that this tool can replace sequential calls to those tools, nor does it state exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the name and the word 'new'.

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