chat_context_inject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it describes the action ('inject'), the effect ('stored as a message and included in the next completion call'), and the timing ('before the next message send'). It lacks details on permissions or error handling, but covers essential operation 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?

The description is front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage, the second explains the behavioral outcome. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it clarifies the tool's role, usage timing, and behavioral effects. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or error cases, though the lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear description of the injection process.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the context parameter's purpose ('external context'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('inject external context') and resources ('into a session'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it prepares content 'before the next message send', unlike chat_message_send or chat_search which handle different actions.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('before the next message send') and examples of what to inject ('Aiana memory recall, documentation snippets, or runtime state'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like chat_message_send.

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