Agent Chat Completions

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

Annotations already provide the basic safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive). The description adds that it is OpenAI-compatible and requires a specific agent ID, giving some context about the API behavior, but it doesn't disclose details like streaming behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that immediately conveys the endpoint type and scope. No superfluous 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?

The description gives the core idea and the schema covers the parameters, but given the large set of sibling chat tools, a bit more context about when this endpoint is preferred or how it differs from other completions endpoints would improve completeness. The lack of output schema info isn't critical for a chat endpoint.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (agent_id, messages, stream), so the description doesn't need to add much. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 it as an OpenAI-compatible chat/completions endpoint scoped to a specific agent, distinguishing from general chat tools. It names the resource (agent) and the operation (chat completions), so the agent knows what it does.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided. The description simply states what the tool is, leaving the agent to infer when to use it among many chat-related siblings like lyzr_chat or lyzr_simple_chat_completions.

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