stateful_chat

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden. It discloses server-side storage, the need for only latest prompt, and the behavior of system_prompt (first turn only). Also mentions return format (assistant reply + Response ID). Lacks details on auth or rate limits, but those are standard.

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 introductory paragraph, bulleted Args, and Returns section. Concise yet thorough, no wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, description covers all parameters, return format, and stateful behavior. Complete and self-contained.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section fully describes each parameter: prompt (user message), model (Grok model id with default), response_id (omit to start fresh), system_prompt (optional, first turn only). Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

Describes a specific verb (continue) and resource (server-side stored conversation using xAI's stateful chat). Clearly explains the mechanism (send latest prompt plus previous_response_id) and distinguishes from siblings like 'chat' (stateless) and 'chat_with_files' (multimodal).

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?

Explicitly states when to start a new thread (omit response_id) and that system_prompt applies only on first turn. Provides clear context for usage, though could be stronger by directly contrasting with stateless chat alternatives.

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