togetherai_chat_completion

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a generative text operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or that it does not modify existing data.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. All information is front-loaded and relevant.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention return format (e.g., completion response). It does not. However, for a standard API call, the behavior is somewhat predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by mentioning supported model families for the 'model' parameter, but other parameters (max_tokens, temperature, etc.) are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it runs chat completions with Together AI, lists specific models (Llama, Mistral, Qwen) and mentions 100+ open-source models. Distinguishes from sibling tools like togetherai_completion and other providers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like openai_chat_completion or anthropic_create_message. Only implies it's for chat completions with Together AI models.

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