customer_success_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, rate limits, or response characteristics. The behavior of a 'chat' action is vague.

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?

Description is concise: one line for action, one for routing, then clear Args listing. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action name.

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?

While parameters are explained and an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks context about typical use cases, side effects, or prerequisites. Adequate but minimal 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds explicit meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's default values.

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 customer_success domain agent action `chat` and routes through the dispatcher. It identifies the domain but does not differentiate from other domain-specific chat tools like commerce_chat or engineering_chat.

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. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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