hpc_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet says nothing about authentication, latency, rate limits, cost, or whether conversation state is retained. It only restates the model roster already present in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler beyond a redundant model list. Nothing is buried or padded.

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?

For a simple three-parameter chat call the description covers the basic identity, but with no annotations and a near-duplicate sibling hpc_ai, it leaves the agent without the differentiation or operational context needed to choose confidently.

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 defines model, prompt, and system with a stated default. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond repeating the model names, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: invoke the Westlake AI large-model chat on the university cluster. The model list is repeated from the schema, and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling hpc_ai, which appears to cover overlapping territory.

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 versus hpc_ai or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites (account, VPN, quota). The agent must infer the choice entirely from the name.

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