get_chain_tips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains what data is returned (active chain, forks, stale branches) but omits safety traits (read-only assurance), performance characteristics, or side effects that agents need when annotations are absent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the operation and data returned, the second states the value proposition. Information is front-loaded and dense.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on high-level purpose rather than return value structure. Slight deduction because absence of annotations creates a gap for safety/behavioral context that could have been covered here.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Get chain tips' uses precise verb and resource, while the colon-separated elaboration ('active chain, forks, and stale branches') clarifies exactly what 'tips' encompasses, distinguishing it from general blockchain info tools like get_blockchain_info.

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?

Provides the primary use case ('Useful for detecting chain splits'), giving agents context for when to invoke the tool. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or comparisons to siblings like get_blockchain_info that might overlap in functionality.

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