agent_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: the agent autonomously calls tools, can fail if no knowledge bases are available, and the failure mode 'no search targets available'. It also explains the need to check agent configuration. Missing details like return format and other side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, REQUIRED, and IMPORTANT sections. It is front-loaded with the core idea and every sentence adds value. However, there is some redundancy in the instructions about passing knowledge_base_ids, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage prerequisites, and failure conditions. A brief mention of the response format or return value would improve completeness, but it otherwise provides enough context.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value beyond schema for agent_id and knowledge_base_ids, explaining their interplay and specific conditions for use. It ties parameters to agent configuration, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 identifies the tool as an agentic pipeline chat that autonomously calls tools to answer queries, and specifies it is for complex multi-step questions or comparative analysis. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'chat' tool and other knowledge tools.

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 use it for complex multi-step questions or comparative analysis. Provides detailed prerequisites: use list_agents to discover agents, inspect an agent's kb_selection_mode with get_agent, and pass knowledge_base_ids when required, giving clear alternatives to prevent failure.

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