chat_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return shape and the default model behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, health requirements, or resource cleanup. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value. Every word earns its place, and the return value is presented clearly in a compact way.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and return shape but leaves working_dir and system_prompt unexplained, and lacks usage guidance. An agent would need additional information to correctly invoke the tool with the optional parameters.

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%, and the description only explains 'seat' (seats.yaml key) and 'model' (defaults to first healthy model). The parameters 'working_dir' and 'system_prompt' are completely unexplained. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, partial coverage of only half the parameters is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Open a direct 1:1 chat with one seat' and clearly identifies the resource (a seats.yaml key). It distinguishes itself from sibling council_start (council vs direct 1:1) and chat_send/chat_poll (starting vs continuing a chat).

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 implies usage as the entry point for a direct 1:1 chat, contrasting with council tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like council_start or chat_send. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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