Muse new chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does usefully disclose the navigation side effect (goes to the home composer). However, it omits auth requirements, whether the current thread is discarded, and any state-change implications, leaving notable gaps for a UI-mutating action.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the clarifying side effect in a parenthetical. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the action and its visible effect, which is nearly all an agent needs. Only minor context (auth/state implications) is missing.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty property set.

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 ('Start a fresh Muse thread') and the parenthetical clarifies the effect (navigates to the home composer). The word 'fresh' implies a distinction from siblings like muse_open_chat, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want a brand-new thread rather than opening an existing one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and alternatives such as muse_open_chat or muse_chat are not referenced.

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