get_chains_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potentially dynamic data. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'known blockchain chains with their IDs,' implying a static or reference list, which provides useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. It explains the purpose, usage, and output context adequately, though it could briefly mention the format of the returned list (e.g., as key-value pairs) for slightly better completeness.

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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundancy.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of known blockchain chains with their IDs'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on chain metadata rather than addresses, transactions, contracts, or tokens.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful for getting a chain ID when the chain name is known' and 'This information can be used in other tools that require a chain ID.' It provides clear context for usage without needing to specify exclusions, as the sibling tools are distinct in function.

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