Chat with Report Agent

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the agent can search the knowledge graph and use tools, which goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the tool's interactive capabilities.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key capability. It contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's interactive nature, the presence of full schema coverage, and annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its capabilities. While it doesn't detail response format, 'conversation' implies a textual exchange, and the lack of an output schema makes this acceptable. The schema covers parameter specifics.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., message, chat_history, simulation_id). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. It could have elaborated on how chat_history is used, but the schema already suffices.

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 tool's function ('Have a conversation with the Report Agent about a simulation's results'), uses a specific verb ('Have a conversation'), and names a distinct resource ('Report Agent') that sets it apart from sibling tools like interview_agent or get_report.

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 provides clear context ('about a simulation's results') and implies usage for querying report-related information through a conversational interface. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer 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.