Beacon Chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that native agents have AI personalities and can respond to messages, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the chat is synchronous, whether it consumes credits, or what the response format is. The output schema exists but the description doesn't add much behavioral detail beyond the personality note.

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 two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides clarifying context about native agents. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (2 required params, no enums, no nested objects) and an output schema exists. The description covers the core purpose and gives examples of valid agent IDs. However, it doesn't explain what kind of responses to expect or whether there are any limitations (e.g., only certain agents are available). For a chat tool, a bit more context about the interaction model would help.

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 100%, so both parameters (agent_id and message) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of value by giving an example agent ID format ('bcn_sophia_elya') and clarifying that agent_id refers to a native agent. This is helpful but not extensive.

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's function: 'Chat directly with a native Beacon agent.' It identifies the resource (native agents) and the action (chat). It distinguishes from siblings like beacon_send_message by specifying native agents with AI personalities, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to chat with a native Beacon agent. It provides examples of agent IDs and notes they have AI personalities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like beacon_send_message, which appears to be a sibling tool for sending messages.

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