Start New Chat

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

Annotations state it is not read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds nothing beyond 'start a fresh chat'. It does not say what happens to the existing conversation or context, what 'fresh' means for state, or what the caller gets back. For a state-mutating tool, this leaves the key behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail rather than from disciplined editing.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, it should say what starting a fresh chat does to existing context and how it relates to gemini_chat, which are not covered anywhere else.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is fully described, so there is no parameter semantics burden. Baseline 4 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?

The description is essentially a restatement of the title 'Start New Chat' with 'fresh' and 'conversation' added. It conveys the basic action but offers no distinguishing detail versus siblings like gemini_chat, so it lands in tautology territory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than gemini_chat or gemini_switch_model. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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