ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the full lifecycle (create, send, wait, return), that the chat UUID is returned for follow-ups, and that streaming defaults are governed by the SYNTX_STREAM_MODE environment variable. It omits failure semantics (timeout behavior, partial failures), keeping it below 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste; the core behavior comes first, then the stateless-Q&A framing, then the optional streaming note.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the return value (the assistant reply plus the chat UUID). It is nearly complete for a one-shot tool, with only the undocumented optional parameters leaving a gap.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description only touches `mode: "stream"`, and says nothing about scope, ai_name, timeout, model_type, or poll_interval, so it fails to compensate for the documented gaps.

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 states a specific compound verb sequence: create a chat, send a prompt, wait for the reply, and return it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create-chat, send-message, and wait-for-response, which each do only one of those steps.

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 a clear use case: 'Ideal for stateless Q&A', and mentions follow-ups via the returned chat UUID. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer the lower-level siblings instead, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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