chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral fact ('No external API key required'), but does not disclose other traits like data handling, rate limits, or output format. It does not contradict anything, but coverage is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and a key operational fact (no API key). Every word earns its place; it is concise without being under-specified.

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?

For a simple chat tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits expected return behavior, error conditions, or any limitations. With no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would be valuable, but the description is minimally adequate.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond reaffirming the optional system prompt, which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('general-purpose LLM'). It distinguishes itself from specialized sibling tools via the 'general-purpose' qualifier, and mentions the optional system prompt, making the scope 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?

Usage is implied through 'general-purpose', suggesting use when specialized tools (e.g., summarize, classify) are not appropriate. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternative tools named.

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