grc_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says the tool routes through a dispatcher and takes free-text input. It does not mention whether it is read-only, modifies data, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. The term 'chat' implies interaction but not the nature of the underlying action.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides parameter details. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 chat tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, context (dispatcher, scoping), and parameter semantics. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema likely handles that. Lacks usage guidelines, which prevents a higher score.

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 adds brief but meaningful descriptions: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 the tool runs a 'chat' action for the GRC domain, using a domain-agent dispatcher. It explains the routing context (JWT, tenant, company). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other grc_* sibling tools like grc_compliance_audit, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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. The description mentions routing under certain scopes but does not provide context for when to choose this over other 'chat' tools or other GRC tools. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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