solver_chat

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by identifying this as a domain-agent action and stating that it routes through the platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not elaborate on the practical implications of destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, such as the solver agent potentially modifying data or taking external actions. The annotations carry the safety profile, but the description could do more to warn the agent about side effects.

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 front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first line, routing context takes one sentence, and the Args list is minimal. There is no filler, no repetition of schema defaults, and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema and annotations covering read-only/destructive/open-world/idempotent hints, the core invocation details are present. The main gaps are the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling solver tools and the lack of clarity about what happens when both parameters are left at their defaults. These gaps make the definition adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only semantic source for parameters. It clearly defines message as the free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, which adds real meaning beyond the raw schema. It could include examples or describe accepted input structure for the solver domain, but for two simple optional parameters it is adequate.

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 specific verb ('Run') and a named resource ('solver domain agent action chat'), and the Args block clarifies that it accepts a free-text objective. This makes the tool's role clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other *_chat siblings or the solver_* specialized tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is given about when to use solver_chat versus solver_solve_optimization, solver_schedule_optimization, or the other domain chat tools. The routing/scope sentence is implementation mechanics rather than usage guidance, and 'Free-text objective' only weakly implies open-ended use. The agent is left to infer the selection context.

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