list_chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a dictionary with chain information, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence about the return value adds useful information without redundancy. However, the formatting includes extra whitespace and could be slightly more polished, preventing a perfect score.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return type, but lacks details on authentication, data format, or error cases. With no annotations to supplement, it meets the minimum viable standard but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is warranted, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all Kroger-owned chains.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Kroger-owned chains'), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_chain_exists' or 'get_chain_details', which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_chains' over 'check_chain_exists' or 'get_chain_details', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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