chat

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the model self-directs with tool surface by default, and that setting enable_agentic=False forces a toolless completion. Mentions reasoning level requirement. Does not address rate limits or auth, but for a chat tool these are less critical.

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?

Description is a multi-line docstring with a concise one-sentence summary upfront. The args list is well-structured. Every sentence adds value, though could be more terse. Still, it is efficient 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (Has output schema: true), the description need not explain return values. It covers all parameters, modes, and behavioral notes (agentic vs toolless, reasoning levels). Mentions multi-agent constraint. Sufficient for a chat tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter: prompt (user message), session (persists history), model (Grok model id), system_prompt (prepended instruction), agent_count (4 or 16, only with grok-4.20-multi-agent), enable_agentic (default True), require_reasoning_level (enum values). Adds significant meaning beyond 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 'Send a text prompt to a Grok model and return its reply,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like chat_with_files and chat_with_vision by focusing on text input. The absorption of the old agentic_chat tool is also noted, adding clarity.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use agentic vs non-agentic mode via enable_agentic parameter. Mentions default model and session persistence. Does not explicitly exclude use cases or list alternatives, but sibling tool names imply other tools for file/vision. Lacks when-not-to-use conditions.

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