Call Mirai model

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the return value ('assistant text'), explains authentication behavior and quota limits, and distinguishes paid vs. guest usage. It could more explicitly mention side effects like quota consumption, but overall adds meaningful transparency.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, differentiation from siblings, and authentication context. No redundant or filler words. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 tool with 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main function, intended usage, sibling exclusion, return type, and authentication context. Minor gap: it does not specify behavior when daily guest quota is exhausted, but the description is largely complete for decision-making.

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 any parameter-specific explanations beyond what the input schema descriptions already provide (e.g., optional model default, message format, max_tokens). No extra semantic value for parameters.

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 starts with 'Send a chat completion to Mirai and return the assistant text,' clearly stating the specific verb ('Send') and resource ('chat completion to Mirai'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating not to use it for looking up prices or quota, which should be done with list_models or account_status.

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?

It gives explicit instructions: 'Use this only to generate a reply. Do not use this to look up prices or remaining quota; use list_models or account_status.' Additionally, it explains authentication context—works without an API key while daily guest quota remains, and with a key uses paid API—providing clear context for when to use.

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