Widget Stream Chat

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the streaming behavior and the server-side fixed target. Since annotations only declare non-read-only and non-idempotent, this added context is valuable and not contradicted by the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior (send and stream) and important constraints (fixed target, no credentials). It lacks detail on the streamed response format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the rich sibling 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 sends a message to a pre-configured embeddable widget agent and streams back the response. It distinguishes itself from sibling chat tools (e.g., lyzr_chat, lyzr_stream_chat) by emphasizing the fixed server-side agent and lack of agent_id/credentials.

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 explicitly states no agent_id or credentials are accepted, which clarifies when this tool is appropriate (for pre-configured widget agents) and when it is not (any scenario requiring agent selection). However, it does not name specific alternative tools for those other scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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