Get Relay Chat

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations but does not add behavioral context beyond them, such as auth requirements, not-found behavior, or side effects. It is consistent with annotations and not contradictory, but it contributes no additional transparency beyond the structured data.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation and target with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it does not repeat schema or annotation content unnecessarily.

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 simple read-only lookup with one required, schema-validated ID parameter and safety annotations, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The only minor gap is lack of explicit return-shape or not-found behavior, though 'Retrieve one Relay Chat' implies the returned chat object.

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 input schema has no descriptive text for chat_id (0% coverage), so the description's 'by ID' is the only prose tying the parameter to the resource. It effectively communicates that chat_id identifies the target chat, and combined with the schema's type/format/pattern, this is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'one Relay Chat' and the access method 'by ID'. The word 'one' clearly distinguishes it from relay_list_chats and other relay_* getters, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 use when you already have a chat_id and want a single chat entity, but it gives no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. It does not name relay_list_chats as the alternative for browsing multiple chats. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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