coding_chat

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful routing/scoping behavior ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but does not detail side effects or return characteristics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded statement followed by a structured Args list; every sentence contributes. It avoids repeating schema defaults and includes no extraneous 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 simple two-parameter chat action with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, scope, and parameters. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it instead of specialized coding tools, but that gap is captured in usage_guidelines; the essential invocation details are present.

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 0%, and the description compensates by documenting both parameters: message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is meaningful but brief; it doesn't specify the allowed shape of the JSON or provide examples, so it is not a 5.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the coding domain agent action `chat`.' It adds routing context (domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope), so an agent can identify this as the coding-domain chat entry point. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling coding_* actions or other chat tools, so it stops short of a top score.

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 is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The description only says what the tool does and what its args are; it does not mention when a request should route to coding_chat rather than coding_read_code, coding_write_code, or code_workspace_chat. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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