chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses session file replay, append behavior, and model-specific constraints. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error conditions.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean bullet-style list for parameters. No redundancy, well-structured.

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 description covers the main behavior and parameter usage, and mentions the return value (reply text plus token usage footer). However, without an output schema, it could elaborate on the exact response format or include edge cases.

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 0%, yet the description adds thorough explanations for all five parameters, including defaults, constraints (e.g., agent_count only valid with specific model), and the purpose of each parameter (e.g., session for loading history).

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 'Send a text prompt to a Grok model and return its reply,' specifying the verb (send) and resource (Grok model). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat_with_files and chat_with_vision by focusing solely on text prompts with session replay.

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 session replay occurs and that agent_count is only valid with a specific model, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned.

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