copilot_new_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'the prior chat is retained on the service,' clarifying this is non-destructive and does not wipe history. It says nothing about what is returned (a session/chat identifier?) or how subsequent calls bind to the new chat, which matters for a state-establishing call.

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?

A single sentence with two clauses, both load-bearing: the action and the non-destructive retention guarantee. Front-loaded with the verb, zero filler.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is the only source of behavior, and it leaves open whether a chat ID is returned and whether copilot_ask automatically targets the newly started conversation. For a state-establishing tool sitting alongside copilot_ask, that missing handoff detail is a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and it correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new conversation.' The clause 'for subsequent prompts' signals it precedes copilot_ask, giving implicit sibling differentiation. It stops short of naming copilot_ask or copilot_status explicitly, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 phrase 'for subsequent prompts' implies this is a setup call used before issuing prompts, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when NOT to call it (e.g. to continue an existing thread) nor names copilot_ask as the follow-up, leaving usage to inference.

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