eliza_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a synchronous request/response and a non-destructive read-like interaction, but says nothing about session state persistence, whether the conversation accumulates context, or rate limits. The 'Rogerian psychotherapist' note is domain color, not tool 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a brief contextual clarification. No waste, though the second sentence is optional flavor rather than operational detail.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema this is adequate on the surface, but the sibling set reveals stateful semantics (reset, initial, final) that the description never addresses. An agent cannot tell whether calls share conversation state or how they relate to eliza_reset.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'message'. The description adds no format, length, or content constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Send a message to ELIZA chatbot and receive a response') and the second sentence clarifies what ELIZA is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like eliza_reset or eliza_get_initial, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (eliza_reset, eliza_get_initial, eliza_get_final). The presence of eliza_reset strongly implies stateful conversation, yet nothing tells the agent when a chat call is appropriate or what ordering constraint applies.

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