grc_chat

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

The description adds useful scoping context (JWT, tenant, company scope) and clarifies that the tool is a dispatcher route. It does not describe side effects, but annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the burden is reduced. The actual action remains opaque—"chat" could cover many behaviors—but the annotation set lower the bar and no contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-structured: two short sentences plus a two-line Args list. The key action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary technical explanation.

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?

The output schema exists and both parameters are explained, so the mechanical invocation is adequately covered. However, the description omits any context on what the GRC chat action can actually accomplish, how to phrase an objective, or when this tool should be preferred over a domain-specific GRC action. This is a moderate gap for a generic 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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It does so meaningfully: message is described as the free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds semantic value beyond the bare schema types and defaults, though it does not provide examples or the expected structure 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: "Run the grc domain agent action `chat`" and explicitly identifies the routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. It avoids tautology by adding the JWT/tenant/company scope, which clarifies the operation context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many GRC-specific tools (e.g., grc_risk_register_scan), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use grc_chat versus the GRC-specific tools or the many other <domain>_chat tools. The description only states routing scope and does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. With a large sibling list, an agent receives no help choosing between this generic chat entry point and a targeted GRC action.

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