Yougile Chats

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

The description discloses access levels (read/write) for each operation, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation. It also notes that parameters require a help call, hinting at complexity. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, rate limits, or the fact that 'reactions' and 'delete' are mentioned but not present as operations, which could mislead. Given the sparse annotation, the description partially carries the burden but isn't comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by a concise list of operations with access levels. It avoids fluff and includes a useful pointer to the help tool. The Russian translations add length but serve as clarifications. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 complex tool with nine operations and no output schema, the description covers operation names and access levels but omits parameter details, return values, and error behavior. It also introduces 'reactions' and 'delete' that are not in the operation enum, creating ambiguity. The reliance on yougile_help may be acceptable, but the description could be more complete given the tool's breadth.

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 already provides descriptions for params and confirm, with 67% coverage. The description adds no meaning about what each operation's parameters should contain; it only defers to yougile_help. For a multi-operation tool with varying parameter shapes, this is insufficient. The description does not compensate for the moderate schema coverage, so the agent lacks guidance on constructing correct params without extra help calls.

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 handles chat messages for tasks (with chatId = task id) and group chats, listing operations like history, send, edit/delete, and reactions. It names the resource and actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_task_chat by covering both task and group chats. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but never states when to choose this over yougile_task_chat or other chat-related tools. The only pointer is 'Call yougile_help("chats.<operation>")' for parameters, which is about parameter help, not usage context. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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