Mistral chat completion

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool returns structured content with assistant text and token usage, and explicitly states it does not stream. Although no mention of side effects or permissions, the annotations already cover safety profile. The contradiction check is false (readOnlyHint true aligns with non-streaming read operation).

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 a clear structure: main purpose, bullet points for when to use, and a separate line about streaming. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of a chat completion tool and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, alternatives, and streaming behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 63%; the description does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, the usage guidelines indirectly help with model selection. The schema already describes most parameters adequately, so a baseline of 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 'Generate a chat completion using a Mistral model', specifying the verb (generate) and resource (chat completion). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning Codestral for code, Ministral for classification, and mistral_chat_stream for streaming, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., drafting French content, Code/classification alternatives) and when-not-to-use ('Does NOT stream — use mistral_chat_stream'). It also gives clear alternatives, offering strong guidance for selection.

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