chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a sessionId and may return a status of 'awaiting_permission', which is valuable. However, it does not describe the full response structure, error handling, or any rate limits or side effects, leaving gaps in the behavior profile.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main action, noting the return value, and giving conditional guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any redundant or filler content.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential facts (session start/continue, sessionId, permission status) but is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no return schema. It doesn't explain the overall response format, potential errors, or behaviors like timeouts or asynchronous execution, which are important for a chat interaction 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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond what the schema states: it mentions returning a sessionId and the process for continuing sessions, but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or constraints. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Start a new conversation with Claude Code or continue an existing session.' It also mentions the return of a sessionId, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_output or list_sessions. The conditional note about 'awaiting_permission' ties it to the 'respond' tool, further clarifying its role.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool (starting or continuing a session) and names the alternative 'respond' for handling permission requests. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for retrieving output), but the reference to 'respond' and the session-oriented focus give reasonable guidance.

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