Create Hermes API chat completion

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

The description discloses several important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it requires a specific policy plus multiple gates (live/model/tool/external-side-effect), disables streaming in v0 (a significant behavior change from standard OpenAI semantics), and writes redacted request/result/response receipts. This is rich contextual disclosure that the annotations (which only mark openWorldHint=true) do not provide.

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 a single dense sentence that packs substantial information (endpoint, compatibility, policy requirements, gates, streaming limitation, receipt behavior) into one well-structured sentence. Every clause earns its place and there is zero filler.

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 comples tool with an output schema present, the description covers key operational concerns: policy requirements, gates, streaming behavior, and receipt redaction. It doesn't explain the return value structure, but the output schema exists to handle that. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance around when to prefer this over hermes_api_responses_create.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. The description notes streaming is disabled in v0, which meaningfully informs the 'stream' parameter. However, it does not detail the other parameters (model, messages, max_tokens, temperature) beyond what the schema already provides, though the schema itself is quite descriptive with $defs for message types.

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 creates a chat completion via a Typed OpenAI-compatible POST /v1/chat/completions wrapper for mocked/local Hermes API endpoints. The verb+resource (create chat completion) is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like hermes_api_responses_create and hermes_kanban_* tools, though it could be clearer about what distinguishes it from hermes_api_responses_create since responses also involve completion-like calls.

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 mentions it targets 'mocked/local Hermes API endpoints' which gives some context on when to use it, and notes it 'requires api_call policy plus live/model/tool/external-side-effect gates'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this versus other chat/completion tools.

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