morpheus_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states key behaviors: OpenAI-compatible request shape, default model fallback, optional tools/tool_choice, and JSON response containing assistant content and tool_calls. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: call type, message shape, model default, optional tool parameters, and return format. No wasted wording.

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 that an output schema exists, the return value details are covered elsewhere. The description addresses the main invocation requirements: messages are required, model has a default, and optional tools/tool_choice are supported. It lacks explicit usage guidance for max_tokens and temperature, but overall an agent can correctly invoke the tool with this definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for messages ('OpenAI shape'), model ('defaults to MORPHEUS_MODEL_DEFAULT when omitted'), and tools/tool_choice ('for models that support tool_calls'). However, max_tokens and temperature are not explicitly described, though their names are self-explanatory.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Call Morpheus OpenAI-compatible chat/completions') that immediately clarifies the tool's function. This clearly differentiates it from siblings morpheus_list_models and morpheus_embed, which are distinct operations.

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 clearly establishes context: use this for OpenAI-compatible chat completions with messages, model selection, and optional tool calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names make the intended use obvious.

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