task_chat

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

The description discloses that system records are hidden by default, which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it lacks explicit safety information (e.g., read-only or destructive nature) and does not discuss pagination or output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted text.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it omits explanation of the limit and full parameters, and does not clarify the scope of the discussion retrieved. The description is too brief for a chat tool with multiple parameters.

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 coverage is 50% (descriptions for full and include_system). The tool description adds context for include_system by mentioning system records are hidden, but does not compensate for missing schema descriptions on task_id and limit.

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 retrieves discussion inside a task, with the phrase 'Обсуждение внутри задачи — там суть, а не в полях'. This distinguishes it from task field operations but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chat_read or project_chats.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for task discussions but does not address when not to use it (e.g., for general chat) or provide prerequisites.

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