document_intelligence_chat

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, read-only status, rate limits, or output format. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 three sentences plus two parameter lines. It is front-loaded with the main action but could integrate the routing info more efficiently. No wasted sentences.

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's complexity and sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the chat does (e.g., query document knowledge) or how it differs from other document_intelligence tools. Parameter descriptions are minimal.

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%, so the description partially compensates by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. However, these descriptions are generic and lack examples or formatting details.

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 it runs a domain agent action 'chat' and routes through a dispatcher, but does not explicitly specify what the chat does (e.g., answering questions about documents). The purpose is implied by the tool name but not clearly 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coding_chat or other document_intelligence tools. The description provides no context for selection.

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