hermes_chat

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

With all annotations false, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a durable task and A2A context mapping, hinting at persistence and a follow-up workflow, but it does not state side effects (e.g., that it sends a message, creates a task, or persists state) or mention synchronous vs. asynchronous behavior. That's a clear gap, though the return-value hint adds some value.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and key return values. No wasted words—it efficiently communicates the core purpose and output. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (7 params, async modes), the description is minimal. However, the rich input schema and presence of an output schema cover parameter semantics and return formats. The description omits guidance on when to use async vs. sync modes, though that lives in the mode parameter's description. Overall, it's adequate but not enriched for a tool with this many options.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% — every parameter has a description (e.g., mode, context_id, idempotency_key). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high coverage, this scores a 3.

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 verb ('Start or continue') and the resource ('a Hermes conversation'), and it specifies what's returned ('a durable bridge task and A2A context mapping'). This distinguishes it from siblings like hermes_status or hermes_task_get, which focus on inspecting tasks rather than initiating interaction.

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 that this tool is the entry point for sending messages to Hermes, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to call hermes_status or hermes_task_get instead). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, so it stays at an adequate level.

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