Pentagonal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only listing operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or what happens if no blockchains are supported. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states what the tool does and what information it returns. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't provide context about the blockchain data's format, freshness, or limitations. For a listing tool with no structured output documentation, more detail about the return format would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all supported blockchains'), and specifies what information is returned (chain IDs, explorer URLs, deployment hints). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specificity of listing blockchain metadata distinguishes it from tools like 'pentagonal_audit' or 'pentagonal_compile'.

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 the six sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others like 'pentagonal_lookup' or 'pentagonal_rules'.

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