vibekit_chat

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of transparency. It explicitly discloses that the agent can 'read, write, and modify the app's code, run commands, and deploy changes,' which is critical behavioral information for a tool that might trigger significant side effects. It does not detail permissions, reversibility, or execution model, but the core autonomous behavior is clearly exposed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action ('Send a message') and then adds the important capability warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the broad behavior and the powerful agent capabilities, but no output schema exists and the description does not mention what the agent returns, whether the call is synchronous, or how to handle/asynchronously consume the result. It is adequate for understanding the purpose but leaves gaps about the conversational flow and response handling.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (appId, message), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the general purpose, matching the baseline expectation when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message to an app's AI agent.' It clearly distinguishes chat from sibling tools like vibekit_agent_status or vibekit_exec by focusing on conversational interaction. The added context about the agent's capabilities (read/write/code/deploy) further clarifies what the tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to interact conversationally with an app's AI agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as vibekit_submit_task, vibekit_exec, or the agent control tools. This is an implied but not explicit usage guideline.

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