Get Chat

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It mentions getting details but does not specify what those details include (e.g., participants, messages, timestamps) or whether it is a pure read with no side effects. Lacks explicit statement of read-only nature.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative but remains concise and front-loaded.

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?

Simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema. Description is adequate for a basic retrieval but lacks detail on what 'details' are returned. Given no annotations, slightly more context would be beneficial.

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?

One parameter 'chatId' with schema description 'The chat id.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 action 'get' and the resource 'details of a single conversation by its chat id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like repliz_list_chats (list all chats) and repliz_read_chat (which likely implies reading messages or marking as read).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repliz_list_chats for multiple chats, repliz_read_chat for perhaps a different purpose). No preconditions or context provided.

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