Chat with Muse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: it blocks until streaming finishes (synchronous completion), and it consumes the caller's own session and token quota. It omits failure/timeout behavior and whether the call mutates conversation state, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the quota/session caveat placed second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does state the return value (the assistant reply) plus the blocking nature of the call. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has enough to invoke it, though timeout/error outcomes are left unspecified.

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 100%, so all five parameters (chat, files, prompt, new_thread, timeout_sec) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 prompt to Muse and return the assistant reply'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like muse_read_chat or muse_read_last. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest alternatives (muse_new_chat, muse_open_chat), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the tool you call to actually send a message — and the note about using your own logged-in session is a useful prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus muse_new_chat/muse_open_chat, and no stated conditions such as needing to log in first (muse_login).

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