List chains

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds which fields come back, but nothing about ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, or whether it hits remote state — modest value beyond annotations.

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?

A single short clause with zero padding, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. It loses a point for being a fragment that omits the verb rather than a complete sentence.

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 parameterless read tool with an annotation covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately sketches the return shape (chain id, native coin, contract addresses). Ordering or filtering details would be nice but are not required to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names the resource (Kosmo Protocol chains) and enumerates the returned fields (chain id, native coin, factory/executor/hook contracts), so the agent can infer it enumerates supported chains. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and the listing action is only implied by the tool name 'list_chains'.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this, no prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings such as get_quote_assets. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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