Chat with a Duck

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

The description adds the behavioral detail of context maintenance, which goes beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It does not disclose other potential behaviors such as persistence, returns, or side effects beyond what openWorldHint indicates.

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 concise sentence with no filler words, efficiently conveying the core function.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description could elaborate on the expected response format or the role of the duck. The mention of context maintenance is helpful, but overall the description is minimal.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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 the tool's function as having a conversation with a duck and explicitly mentions maintaining context across messages. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ask_duck or duck_debate, which may also involve interaction.

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 the tool is for multi-turn interactions due to 'maintaining context across messages'. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like ask_duck or duck_council.

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