Get Chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state that a missing ID produces an error rather than an empty result, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or any other runtime side effects, though 'get' implies a safe read.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Get a single chain by ID, or error if not found.' Each clause adds useful information—scope, parameter, and error behavior. For a tool with a single parameter, this is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is a simple read-by-ID with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core behavior and error case, and the single parameter is simple. Still, it never situates itself relative to list_chains or states prerequisites for obtaining a valid chain_id, so it is not fully complete.

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 sole parameter chain_id is documented only as an integer. The description merely says 'by ID', which mirrors the parameter name and adds no information about where the ID comes from, valid values, or format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to substantially compensate.

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 ('get'), resource ('chain'), and scope ('single chain by ID') in one sentence. The error-if-not-found clause adds precision, and the 'single' scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling list_chains. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 the tool is for fetching exactly one chain when you know its ID, but it never mentions when to use this instead of list_chains or the other siblings. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references. Usage is only implied by the verb and scope, so it stays at a minimum viable level.

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