ai_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly discloses key behavioral traits: non-streaming, single-turn, optional model/system prompt overrides, mutual exclusivity of message parameters, and error handling for missing credentials. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, and the return value format is not described.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds unique value (features, comparison, parameter guidance). No redundant or filler content.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could better explain the return value format or structure. It mentions 'return its response' and error handling, but agents might need more detail. However, for a chat tool, the response is typically straightforward, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing mutual exclusivity of message and message_path, explaining the CLI comparison for system_prompt, and advising preference for the path form. This goes beyond the schema's description, providing practical usage context.

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 'Send' and the resource 'message to the configured AI', listing supported backends. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying it's a single-message, non-streaming tool, which is unique among the listed siblings that are mostly Atlassian, Datadog, Git, Jira, Snowflake, and transcript 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (single-turn, non-streaming), mentions optional overrides, compares to the CLI command (noting differences like the system prompt flag), and advises preferring message_path when the message is already on disk. Also describes error behavior on missing credentials, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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