twin_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that responses are WORM-sealed and requires a local Ollama instance. However, it doesn't explain error behavior, latency implications, or whether it modifies state. The information is basic but present.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main action, the second adds key behavioral and prerequisite info. Highly concise.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about response format, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools like sovereign_inject or worm_seal. It is barely adequate.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds context like 'sovereign digital twin' and 'twin identity' but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's for chatting with a local Ollama model as a sovereign digital twin. The mention of WORM-sealed response distinguishes it from generic chat tools. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like worm_read or worm_seal, which also deal with WORM data.

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 provides a prerequisite (Ollama running locally) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like sovereign_inject or worm_read. No when-not or explicit context is given.

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