ChatGPT Web chat

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description adds useful behavioral caveats: ChatGPT cannot access repositories or execute code, and returned code must be validated. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or conversation persistence, but it does reveal non-obvious constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place: the action, the capability boundary, and the caller responsibility.

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 output schema presumably covers return values, but the input side is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool: the meaning of effort, model, timeout_ms, and conversation_id is absent. The behavior caveats are helpful, but an agent still lacks enough detail to use optional parameters correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but only 'prompt text' clarifies the prompt parameter. 'model', 'effort', 'timeout_ms', and 'conversation_id' are left to be inferred from their names alone.

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 specifies the action ('Send prompt text'), the resource ('ChatGPT Web'), and the result ('return the assistant response'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with chatgpt_status or chatgpt_capabilities, but the distinct action leaves little room for confusion.

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 the tool should be used whenever a ChatGPT response is needed and warns that repository/execution capabilities are absent, acting as a when-not-to-use boundary. It never names the sibling tools or states conditions for choosing status/capabilities instead.

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