Chat grounded in an app's knowledge base

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it performs RAG retrieval and answers with citations, but does not mention if it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., no chunks found). Some behavioral context is provided but not 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 extremely concise with only 13 words, no fluff. Every word adds value, and the key concept 'RAG chat' is front-loaded.

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 tool that uses RAG and provides citations, the description is minimally viable but lacks details about output format, how citations are structured, and what happens if retrieval fails. No output schema exists, so the description should cover this but does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'App ID' implicitly but does not describe the parameters in detail. The prompt parameter's role is vaguely implied by 'answers with citations', but no explanation of format or constraints beyond schema minLength.

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 'RAG chat' and mentions retrieving chunks and answering with citations, specifying the verb and resource (app's knowledge base). It distinguishes from siblings like kb_search (search) and chat (generic) by emphasizing grounding in the app's knowledge base.

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 title implies use for chat grounded in the app's knowledge base, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. Siblings like kb_search and chat exist, but the description does not guide selection.

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