chat_with_files

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that file_ids are attached to the user turn, optional session persists history, and returns assistant reply with sources list. It does not mention auth or error handling, but covers key behaviors.

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 (9 lines), well-structured with general behavior, Args list, and Returns. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameters and return value. Missing details like file type constraints or error conditions, but overall adequate.

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 explains each parameter in detail (e.g., session path, default model, usage flag). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 the tool chats with Grok using uploaded files as context. The verb 'Chat' and resource 'files' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'chat' (no files) and 'chat_with_vision' (vision-specific).

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 file-based queries ('using one or more previously uploaded files as context'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'chat' without files) or provide contraindications.

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