gtm_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses routing through a dispatcher with auth scope, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what constitutes a destructive action. For a chat tool, the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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: a single sentence for purpose and a brief, structured Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded and 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 tool has an output schema (which covers return values), the description sufficiently covers invocation context, parameters, and scope. It lacks examples or notes on error behavior, but for a simple chat tool this is largely complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly documents both parameters: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying intent and format.

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 gtm domain agent action 'chat' and explains routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, among many sibling chat tools (commerce_chat, crm_chat, coding_chat), it does not differentiate what makes GTM-specific chat unique, leaving purpose slightly generic.

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?

The description implies usage is for GTM domain tasks via domain agent, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative domain agent chats or when not to use it. The 'when-to-use' is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description.

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