chat_with_brain

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it returns answer + source citations, supports multi-turn via chat_history and session_id. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful details beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's high-level purpose, the second lists key parameters and output. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence carries essential information without redundancy.

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?

With 4 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers inputs, outputs, and multi-turn capability. It does not discuss rate limits or errors, but given annotations and output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining brain_slug as a URL segment, chat_history for multi-turn context, and session_id for continuation. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 the tool is for asking questions to a public BrainTube Brain, specifying the verb 'ask', the resource 'Brain', and the context of a curated knowledge base. It distinguishes from sibling search/retrieval tools by focusing on a single Brain with conversational Q&A.

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 explains when to use the tool (to query a Brain) and what to provide (brain_slug, question, optional chat_history). Although it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for interactive Q&A on a specific knowledge base.

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