get_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the output includes how each link was resolved, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what inputs it requires, or any side effects, errors, or auth requirements.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool.

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 tool with two required but undocumented parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description of the result is insufficient. It does not explain what type and name refer to, how the chain is rooted, or how this relates to profiles and siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions 'type' or 'name'. The agent cannot infer what these parameters identify or what values are expected, so the description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource—the inheritance chain to its root—and adds a useful detail about how links were resolved. The action is implied by the tool name 'get_chain', and the chain/root framing distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile or find_children, though no explicit verb is present.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_children or explain_key. There is no mention of prerequisites, input meaning, or situations where this tool is preferred or not appropriate.

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