commerce_chat

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing and scoping but does not reveal behavioral traits such as whether the chat retains history, triggers side effects, calls external APIs, or expects interactive responses. Transparency is minimal.

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 concise with one routing sentence and a clear Args list. No redundant or excessive content. However, the routing sentence could be integrated into the main purpose statement for even tighter structure.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain what the chat action does beyond 'run', such as whether it is conversational, what types of responses to expect, or how it interacts with other commerce tools. Incomplete for a chat tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on expected JSON structure or constraints for 'inputs'.

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 it runs the commerce domain agent action 'chat', specifying the domain and action. It adds routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other domain chat tools (e.g., coding_chat, crm_chat), which weakens disambiguation.

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 alternatives (e.g., commerce_converse, other domain chat tools). The description mentions scoping but does not help the agent decide when commerce_chat is appropriate. Lacks examples or conditions.

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