switch_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('切换到指定聊天窗口') but doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally—whether it changes UI state, loads messages, or requires specific conditions. No information is given about side effects, permissions, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a chat interface.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first part states the tool's purpose, followed directly by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity of a tool that likely changes chat state, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after switching (e.g., success indicators, error conditions, or what 'chat window' means in context). For a tool with behavioral implications, more detail is needed to guide proper use.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'who' is a contact name and 'exact' controls exact matching with a default of false. This clarifies the purpose and usage of both parameters, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., for 'who'), preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: '切换到指定聊天窗口' (switch to a specified chat window). It uses a specific verb ('切换' - switch) and resource ('聊天窗口' - chat window), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'switch_to_contact', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'switch_to_contact' or explain any differences in context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint is the parameter explanation, which doesn't address tool selection.

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