eliza_get_initial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether calling it resets state, whether it's idempotent, or what exactly is returned (the greeting message text, a message object, etc.). For a zero-argument tool in a conversational context, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get ELIZA's initial greeting message') and adds a succinct usage note. Every word earns its place.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain what happens if called mid-conversation, whether it resets anything, or what the response format is. For a tool in a chat context, these details matter, though the bare minimum is met.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is largely irrelevant. The baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't.

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: retrieve ELIZA's initial greeting. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like eliza_chat (which likely sends a message) and eliza_get_final (which retrieves the final message). The scope is narrow and well-defined.

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 phrase 'to start a new conversation' clearly indicates when to use this tool, implying it should be called first. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., if a conversation already exists. Still, the context is strong.

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