minimax_chat

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that context is preserved across calls and that systemPrompt is only for new conversations. However, it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or potential destructive behavior. Some useful details are present but gaps remain.

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 two sentences, tightly worded, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value details (expected assistant reply). It also lacks error handling or limits. With 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without guessing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'supports conversation context', which relates to conversationId. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 multi-turn chat tool with context preservation, which distinguishes it from other minimax tools that are task or code generation oriented. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like minimax_agent_task, but the context makes it apparent.

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 usage for multi-turn conversations with context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., minimax_generate_code). No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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