chatgpt_route_new_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds non-obvious behavior: temporary identity probe, model-specific fallback ('gpt-5.6-pro' vs 'gpt-5.5-mini'), stopping on other answers, and a persistently resident browser. But it omits side effects like discarding the current chat, wait/return behavior, and error cases.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then details the routing policy. It is reasonably concise for the complexity, though the long run-on structure could benefit from splitting into separate sentences.

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?

Despite describing the routing policy, the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description leaves many operational questions unanswered: what 'default tier' is, how files/timeout/wait behave, what the tool returns after sending, and failure handling. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 43%, and the description fails to compensate. It never mentions parameters such as mode, wait, files, or timeoutMs, and does not explain how requestPro and forceProbe map to the described probe policy. Most parameter semantics must be inferred from schema defaults and names.

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 opens with '按可配置策略新建并发送' (create and send via configurable policy), clearly identifying a combined new-chat and send operation with routing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chatgpt_new_chat and chatgpt_send_message by specifying the policy-driven workflow.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use different paths: ordinary requests use '极高', explicit Pro requests trigger a probe with fallback rules. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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