minimax_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions non-streaming and return values, omitting details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or mutable. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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 concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information like parameter usage or important constraints.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover parameter semantics, return value details, or usage context, leaving the agent without sufficient information for correct invocation.

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 has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no information about any parameter. For example, it does not explain the role of 'temperature' or 'messages' beyond what the schema provides. This is a critical gap.

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 it is a non-streaming chat completion against MiniMax M3, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like minimax_complete or minimax_tool_call, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., minimax_complete for completions, minimax_tool_call for tool calls). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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