qllm_chat

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, rate limits, auth requirements), leaving the agent to infer behavior solely from annotations.

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: one sentence for purpose, then a brief Args/Returns structure. Every part earns its place, with zero waste and clear front-loading.

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 tool is complex (many parameters, nested ChatInput), but the schema fully documents inputs and the description notes the return format. Missing details about routing or task_type behavior are covered by schema. The combination is nearly complete.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description's high-level categorization of parameter groups adds convenient clarification. With full schema coverage, the description offers useful summarization without being redundant.

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 it calls a provider from the local registry for chat, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qllm_pipeline or qllm_claude_code_run, so a slight deduction applies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qllm_pipeline or qllm_compare. The description only explains what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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