chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: discloses that history is persisted to disk, that the provider may be switched between turns, that an omitted provider prompts the user via the client UI, and that 'effort' is Anthropic-only and ignored elsewhere. It omits auth/permission needs, cost/rate-limit implications of max_tokens, and error behavior on invalid conversation_id.

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 core usage rule is front-loaded in the first two sentences, before the exhaustive Args list. The Args block is somewhat redundant for trivially named parameters, but each line carries actionable context, so it mostly earns its space.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers conversation lifecycle, provider resolution, and per-parameter constraints, and even hints at the returned conversation_id. It stops short of describing the reply payload shape or failure modes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all seven parameters with meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema — notably the conditional behavior of 'provider' (inherits on continuation, prompts on new), the start-only application of 'system', and the Anthropic-only scope of 'effort'. 'max_tokens' and 'message' are near restatements, so this is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to another AI model and get its reply'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_providers, list_conversations, reset_conversation), though it never names them to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Gives explicit operating instructions: omit conversation_id to start new, pass the returned id to continue, provider is auto-resolved for continuations, and 'system' only applies at conversation start. It lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings routing (e.g., reset_conversation to clear history), which keeps it short of a 5.

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