zcode_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains terminal-event success semantics and degraded reporting for accepted-but-unobserved commands, but it omits the mutating or destructive effects of stop, steer, and cancel_background, as well as any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 three compact sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and has no filler or redundant restatement. Each sentence contributes a distinct operational point.

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 supports multiple actions (send, steer, stop, cancel_background, wait) and has no annotations or output schema. The description only covers the send/follow path and one parameter tip, leaving the other action variants and important behavioral context unexplained.

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 documents most parameters. The description only repeats the tool_allowlist example already present in the schema and adds no new parameter meaning, making the baseline score appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: submitting work to the ZCode agent and following it to a terminal state. This clearly identifies the primary chat/turn workflow, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as zcode_session or zcode_status, and it omits the stop/steer/cancel variants exposed by the schema.

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 when to use the tool for submitting work and provides one safety-oriented usage tip for tool_allowlist. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over zcode_session, zcode_status, or other siblings, and it gives no when-not guidance.

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