cohere_chat

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

Discloses support for system preamble and conversation history, indicating statefulness. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention rate limits, authentication requirements beyond api_key, or expected behavior (e.g., streaming, token limits). Adds some value but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous information. Efficient.

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?

For a chat tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, or usage context. Incomplete compared to sibling chat tools that include response format.

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 71% (5 of 7 params described). Description reinforces preamble and chat_history parameters but does not clarify api_key, model, max_tokens, or temperature beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 with marginal added meaning.

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 'Chat with a Cohere Command model' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. Supports system preamble and conversation history, distinguishing it from non-chat siblings like cohere_classify and cohere_embed. However, could more explicitly differentiate from cohere_generate.

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 over siblings such as cohere_generate, cohere_classify, or other chat tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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