anythingllm_chat

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

The description adds behavioral context about how modes affect the use of conversation history and document context, which is useful given that annotations provide no positive hints. However, it does not disclose whether messages are persisted, whether authentication is required, or other mutation side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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. The main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the mode explanation and parameter list follow logically. Every line earns its place with no redundant fluff.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, mode semantics, and parameters. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It does not explicitly discuss threads or relationship to sibling chat tools, but for a simple chat tool with three parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including the meaning of the mode enum values. The descriptions for slug and message are minimal but sufficient, and the mode explanation adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'Send a message to a workspace and get a response,' which clearly specifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes the two modes ('chat' vs 'query'), and the phrase 'to a workspace' helps differentiate from sibling tools like anythingllm_chat_in_thread.

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 mode descriptions provide explicit guidance on when to use 'chat' vs 'query' (context + history vs documents only). However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use chat_in_thread instead), so it lacks full tool-selection guidance.

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