chat_with_agent

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the agent has access to its own toolset and runs tasks under workspace approval rules. While it mentions the agent is slower for read queries, it doesn't detail error handling, latency specifics, or potential destructive actions, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Concise, well-structured description. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples and usage guidelines. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (agent with broad capabilities) and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use and the agent's behavior. However, it could mention the format of the response (e.g., plain text). Still, it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value: for 'message', it emphasizes action-oriented requests; for 'agentId', it clarifies optionality and the default agent. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 verb ('send a message'), resource ('Coherence agent'), and outcome ('get its response'). It specifies the default agent (Nash) and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that read-only lookups should use dedicated tools instead.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('action-oriented requests') and when not to use ('For read-only data lookups... prefer the dedicated tools'). Provides concrete examples and explains the agent's capabilities, giving clear guidance on appropriate context.

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