kms_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some behavior: token management/auto-optimization, multi-modal context, and full document content access. It omits anything about whether the call is read-only, whether it incurs provider cost or latency, and whether history is maintained across calls. Some useful traits, but the safety and cost profile is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's role, which is good, but the text is padded with an emoji and says 'comprehensive' twice ('comprehensive knowledge queries' / 'comprehensive responses'). 'Intelligent token management' and 'Automatically optimizes for token limits' restate the same idea. Roughly half the content earns its place.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a call returns and how it behaves, but it stays at a marketing level. Nothing tells the agent the shape of the answer, whether citations/documents come back, or how multi-modal content is surfaced, leaving a real gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 six parameters (message, tags, types, provider, maxResults, useMultiModal) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at 'multi-modal context' and token optimization, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states it is a RAG-powered conversational query tool, which is a specific enough verb+resource to distinguish it from kms_get_document, kms_list_documents and kms_get_stats. However, it claims to be the 'Primary tool for comprehensive knowledge queries' without distinguishing itself from kms_search, kms_intelligent_search or kms_multimodal_search, all of which sound equally applicable. The 🚀 and repeated 'comprehensive' are promotional rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the search siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Claiming to be the 'Primary tool' is a mild routing hint but gives the agent no decision rule when several sibling search tools exist. An agent could not tell from this text whether kms_chat should be preferred over kms_intelligent_search.

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