chat

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a 'general multi-turn dialogue,' which implies safe, conversational behavior. However, it does not explicitly disclose that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a brief list of parameters. It front-loads the purpose and then efficiently covers parameters 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 simplicity (chat) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, required/optional parameters, and session continuity. It does not detail return values (not needed due to output schema) and is mostly complete.

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 schema description coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaning by labeling PROMPT as 'task instruction' and cd as 'working directory,' and explaining optional parameters (SESSION_ID for continuing session, model for version, return_all_messages for full history). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 is for 'general multi-turn dialogue' with the Coding Plan service and lists specific use cases (code review, plan review, problem analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like review_code and review_plan by emphasizing it is a general-purpose chat.

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 implies usage scenarios ('可用于代码审查、计划审查、问题分析等') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the specialized siblings. No direct 'when not to use' or alternative guidance is provided.

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