novai_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about cost implications, latency/blocking behavior, streaming, or error handling when a model name is invalid. The presence of an output schema covers the return value, but the operational profile of a paid LLM call is undisclosed.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and gives useful examples. The trailing ellipsis is slightly vague about the exact model list, which novai_list_models would presumably resolve.

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 output schema handles return values, but with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a crowded sibling set requiring differentiation, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. It should at minimum clarify cost/selection posture and the role of the system prompt.

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 0% — parameters have only bare titles — but the description compensates for the most important one by naming concrete model values (DeepSeek, Qwen, GLM, Kimi, MiniMax, Doubao), which the schema provides no enum for. The 'prompt' and 'system' parameters remain undocumented, but their intent is largely self-evident from their names.

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 (chat) and resource (Chinese LLM) and enumerates representative models, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like novai_cheapest or novai_free_models, which could plausibly also send a prompt to an LLM.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus novai_cheapest (presumably cost-optimized) or novai_free_models (presumably free-tier). With six siblings in the same family, the absence of any routing context leaves the agent to guess.

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