ask_web_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: local CDP endpoint, pre-send sanitization, and per-provider queueing. It omits critical traits such as blocking/wait behavior, that data is sent to a third-party provider, and what happens on timeout or failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, putting the action first and the mechanism second. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical endpoint detail is of marginal use to an agent selecting the tool.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains how the response is obtained or returned (blocking wait, polling, session retrieval). It also leaves out the prerequisite that a Chrome instance must be running with CDP enabled on port 9222.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including session, new_chat, timeout_s and the two file-list variants. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vague phrases 'sanitizacao previa' and 'fila por provedor', 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('envia consulta para um chat web autenticado') plus the transport mechanism (Chrome CDP on 127.0.0.1:9222), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_chat_sessions or cancel_chat. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the action itself; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling preview_payload and chat_bridge_status suggest useful preconditions (payload preview, bridge readiness) that the description never connects to this tool.

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