chatgpt_route_new_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the conditional probe logic, three possible probe outcomes, fallback behavior, and the fact that the browser remains resident. It does not describe error/return behavior, but the main operational behavior is well covered.

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 dense but contains no filler; every clause contributes. However, it is packed into a long run-on sentence with semicolons, and the final note about the browser being resident could be better separated or structured.

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's conditional complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core routing behavior well but omits return values, error/stop semantics, parameter details, and how it relates to sibling tools. It is usable but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as mode, wait, files, and timeoutMs. It adds strategic context around requestPro and forceProbe, but leaves most parameters without meaningful explanation beyond the 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 新建并发送 (create and send) a new chat, with a specific configurable strategy. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the routing/probing behavior, making it unlike plain chatgpt_new_chat or chatgpt_probe_pro_identity.

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?

It gives clear usage context: normal requests use the high default, explicit Pro requests trigger a temporary identity probe, with specific fallback behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the strategy description makes the intended use clear.

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