list_chains

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 transparently describes a read-only operation ('Lists') with no side effects, and clarifies scope ('in an object (or in all objects)'). While it doesn't disclose error handling or output format, the tool's simplicity limits the need for more detail.

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 sentences: the first states the core function, and the second adds a practical use case. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. It even hints at the default behavior, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% since obj_name already includes 'Object to inspect. Defaults to every loaded object.' The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond reiterating the default behavior ('or in all objects'), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Lists the chain IDs present in an object (or in all objects).' The verb 'Lists' and resource 'chain IDs' make the purpose explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_objects or list_ligands by focusing on chain IDs.

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 the tool: 'Useful before calling interface_view, conservation_view or any tool that needs a specific chain ID.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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