Chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the retrieval precedence (approved conclusions before raw), the fallback condition, and the return components (answer, provenance, recallId). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but it covers the most relevant behavioral aspects for a chat tool.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and includes return information, which is efficient. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter coverage.

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?

With five parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to construct a valid request (e.g., what 'kind' options mean, how 'limit' behaves, or what 'namespace' refers to), leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool reliably.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters (kind, tags, limit, question, namespace). The agent receives no guidance on how to fill these fields, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 states a clear verb ('Chat') and resource ('Pathmark'), and specifies a behavioral nuance ('using approved conclusions first... raw fallback'). It conveys the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_memory or recall_memory, so it is clear but not maximally distinct.

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 phrase 'using approved conclusions first and only scoped or explicitly requested raw fallback' implies when to use this tool (when a conversational answer grounded in approved conclusions is needed). However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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