chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the tool's behavior: sending a prompt, replaying prior turns from a session file, appending new messages, and saving the conversation. It also notes constraints like agent_count only valid with a specific model. Minor omission: does not mention that session files are created or modified, but 'saves the round trip' implies persistence.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Arg and Returns sections. It is concise for the complexity but could be slightly tighter. Every sentence adds value, though the explanation of session behavior could be integrated more succinctly.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers all parameters, return value, and session mechanics. It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or usage bounds, but the level of detail is adequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description compensates fully with a detailed Args section explaining each parameter, including default values, allowed values, and constraints (e.g., agent_count only valid with grok-4.20-multi-agent). This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states 'Send a text prompt to a Grok model and return its reply', specifying the verb and resource. It elaborates on session replay and saving, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like chat_with_files or chat_with_vision.

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 implies usage for text-only chat with optional session persistence but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chat_with_files for file-based queries). No when-not-to-use or alternative names are mentioned.

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