ai_chat

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses non-streaming, single-turn, and error behavior on missing credentials. It does not mention rate limits or token limits, but for a simple chat tool this is acceptable and provides clear expectations.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds constraints, the third covers error behavior and CLI mirror. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers basic usage, constraints, and error handling. It does not specify the exact response format (e.g., plain text vs. JSON), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema; it only indirectly implies the role of 'message' as the user's input. No additional context is provided for the optional parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 it sends a single message to an AI and returns a response, mentioning supported providers (Claude, OpenAI, Ollama, Bedrock). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only AI chat tool, and specifies non-streaming, single-turn behavior.

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 calls out non-streaming and single-turn limitations, implying when not to use it (if streaming or multi-turn needed). It references the CLI command for familiarity. However, it does not list alternative tools or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.

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