imagine_agent_send

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Send a follow-up prompt' without mentioning safety, idempotency, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with optional account/cookies parameters.

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 a single 12-word sentence, which is concise but too minimal for a tool with five parameters. While not verbose, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 five parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., account/cookies). Significant gaps remain.

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 only 40% (two of five parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of prompt, conversation_id, or extra. The agent cannot infer correct values from this information.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'follow-up prompt to an existing Grok Imagine Agent conversation'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like imagine_agent_start (starts new conversation) and imagine_agent_read (reads conversation).

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 use when you have an existing conversation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like imagine_agent_start or agent_send. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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