query_chaincode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'read-only' behavior, which is helpful, but fails to mention other critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the query returns (e.g., data format, success/failure). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 waste. It front-loads the key information ('query the Hyperledger Fabric chaincode') and adds a clarifying note ('read-only'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs queries (which could have complex behaviors), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 fully documents both parameters ('function' and 'args'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are for querying chaincode, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('query') and resource ('Hyperledger Fabric chaincode'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'invoke_chaincode' by specifying 'read-only', but doesn't fully differentiate from other read operations like 'get_blockchain_info' or 'get_transaction_history' that might also query data.

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 usage for read-only queries on chaincode, suggesting when to use it (for querying) versus alternatives like 'invoke_chaincode' (for writes). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other read tools (e.g., 'get_transaction_history') or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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