Yougile Task Chat

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: false, which is minimal. The description discloses the optional write behavior ('optionally posting a message first'), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention the confirmation mechanism (the 'confirm' parameter) that may be required for writes into client-facing projects, nor any side effects. Given the low annotation coverage, this is a reasonable but not exhaustive disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then notes the optional action. There is no waste, and it reads clearly. It is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the optional write. It does not mention the confirmation flow or that posting is a write that may require user approval, but these are covered in the schema. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete, though a brief note about the confirm requirement would enhance completeness.

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 all parameters (send, task, limit, confirm) are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning: it mentions reading and posting, which maps to limit and send, but does not elaborate on parameter nuances like the confirm requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 primary action ('Read the latest messages of a task's chat') with a specific verb and resource, and adds the secondary capability ('optionally posting a message first'). It distinguishes from siblings like yougile_chats (which likely lists chats) and yougile_task (task details) by focusing on chat messages of a specific task.

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 context (reading a task's chat) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like yougile_chats or yougile_task. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative routing. The purpose is clear enough that an agent might infer it, but the guidance is not explicit.

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