start_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Start a new conversation' without mentioning side effects such as creating a new session, potential costs, or what happens to existing conversations. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that initiates an action.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse, though not as structured as descriptions with multiple sections.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., conversation ID) and provide context about how the parameters interact. It does not, leaving the tool under-specified for agents trying to understand its full effect.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters (topic, budget_limit, instructions) with 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the action ('Start a new conversation') and the resource ('GPT-5'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The word 'new' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'continue_conversation', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intent is implied: use when you want to begin a fresh conversation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over 'continue_conversation' or 'consult_gpt5', nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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