chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains side effects (saves round trip to file) and behavior for session, model, system_prompt, and agent_count. However, it does not mention error behavior or rate limits.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, Args, Returns). Concise but includes necessary details; could be slightly trimmed but not overly verbose.

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?

Covers all parameters, behavior, and return value. Lacks information on error handling and when to prefer sibling tools, but given the tool's simplicity and available context (siblings listed), it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, but the description's Args section provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including constraints (e.g., agent_count only valid with specific model). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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?

Clearly states the purpose: 'Send a text prompt to a Grok model and return its reply.' Differentiates from siblings like chat_with_files and chat_with_vision by specifying it's for text-only interaction.

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?

Provides behavioral details (history replay, saving) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No direct comparison to chat_with_files or chat_with_vision, though the text-only focus is implied.

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