gtm_chat

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Run' an action. It adds routing context but no explicit warning about side effects or state changes, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 only two introductory sentences and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple tool and existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It does not describe return values, but that is not required when an output schema is present. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or side effects, but annotations cover destructive behavior.

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?

The description explains both parameters clearly: message is a free-text objective, inputs is an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema defaults, making the purpose of each parameter obvious.

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 the GTM domain agent action 'chat', with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about its domain and action, distinguishing it from generic dispatch tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing details but does not indicate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the selection criteria implicit.

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