Chat with a Duck

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

The description adds that it 'maintain[s] context across messages', indicating statefulness. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as persistence of conversations, side effects of switching provider/model, or how images are handled. The annotation 'openWorldHint: true' signals potential side effects, but the description does not elaborate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Have' and the core purpose. No redundant words; every part is relevant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple providers, optional images) and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more thorough. It captures the essential chat functionality and context maintenance, but does not mention that the tool supports multiple models or image input (though schema covers it).

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating that context is maintained (linking to conversation_id). Without schema coverage limitations, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Have a conversation with a duck, maintaining context across messages'. It uses a specific verb ('Have a conversation') and resource ('a duck'), and it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_duck' (likely single question) and 'compare_ducks' (comparison).

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 multi-turn conversations (by mentioning 'maintaining context') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'duck_council' or 'duck_debate'. No guidance on when not to use it or what preconditions exist.

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