get_chat_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context about dual ID support and a user identity fallback, and lists the returned fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which are relevant for a tool with no structured safety signals.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the tool's purpose, lists the specific data returned, and covers ID format constraints without any filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (name, description, member count, owner) and input format. It lacks explicit error handling or alternative tool references, but these are not critical for such a straightforward getter, making it nearly 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?

The schema already thoroughly documents the only parameter (chat_id) with 'Chat ID (oc_xxx or numeric)'. The description repeats this support ('Supports both oc_xxx and numeric chat_id'), adding no new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get chat details: name, description, member count, owner.' It specifies the resource (chat) and the exact data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_chats or get_user_info. The mention of supporting both oc_xxx and numeric chat_id further clarifies the input scope.

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 usage: it is for retrieving metadata of a single chat, as opposed to listing chats or members. The '[Official API + User Identity fallback]' and 'Supports both oc_xxx and numeric chat_id' provide context about invocation modes, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are given.

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