qwen_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of not being connected to the internet, which is a critical limitation for a chat model. It does not discuss other behaviors like statelessness or rate limits, but for a simple single-message chat tool, this is adequate.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('ordinary conversation'), then adds the key constraint ('not connected to internet'), and ends with concrete examples. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, provides examples, and clarifies the offline nature, which is all an agent needs to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 fully describes the 'message' parameter (the message content to send), so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context about the kinds of tasks the message can be used for, but it does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 that this tool performs ordinary conversations with the Tongyi Qianwen text model, specifically without internet access. It lists common use cases (summarizing, rewriting, translating, code generation) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qwen_search (internet-connected) and qwen_vision (vision-based) by specifying 'text model' and 'not connected to internet'.

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 implies usage for general text tasks that do not require internet access, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use qwen_chat over alternatives (e.g., 'use qwen_search when internet is needed'), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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