talk_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (binding the current Codex/Claude conversation), default behavior (autoReturn=true and replyTo auto-filled), error handling (missing target causes error, not silent disable), reuse semantics (same alias/ID reuse the same conversation), and the fact that no task is dispatched until talk_send. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then logically covers workspace selection, auto-return, reuse, and task dispatch. Every sentence adds value; it is concise given the complexity. Slightly long but not bloated.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter relationships. It does not describe the success return value (e.g., conversation ID), which could be useful, but the agent can likely infer it from the creation action and schema. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the semantics of workspaceName, cwd, autoReturn, replyTo, and alias, including their relationships and defaults. However, it omits details for app, title, and requestId, though these are either trivial (app is const dsh) or inferable (requestId is a UUID). The description compensates well for the most complex parameters.

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 creates a DSH native conversation, using a specific verb ('创建' = create) and resource ('DSH 原生对话'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining the workspace/cwd selection and the auto-return behavior that ties to talk_follow and talk_send, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools like talk_bind or talk_list.

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 explains when to use this tool (to create a conversation) and gives clear context on workspace vs cwd requirements and the auto-return default. It references talk_follow and talk_send, implying alternatives and when they are needed, though it does not explicitly enumerate all sibling exclusions. This is solid guidance without being exhaustive.

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