invoke_chaincode

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. 'Invoke a transaction' suggests a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't clarify permissions required, whether this is destructive, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies blockchain state.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 that likely performs blockchain mutations with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'invoke' means in Hyperledger Fabric context, what gets returned, or how this differs from query operations among the sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('invoke a transaction') and target resource ('on the Hyperledger Fabric chaincode'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_chaincode' which might also interact with chaincode but for different purposes.

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 alternatives. With sibling tools like 'query_chaincode' and 'get_transaction_history' available, there's no indication whether this is for write operations, read operations, or specific types of chaincode interactions.

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