list_chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'active' filter and 'lightweight summary view' behavior, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe return shape or filtering beyond 'active'. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource plus the key qualifier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. For a parameterless list tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete; only routing guidance against the many sibling chain readers is missing.

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?

No meaningful parameters (schema is an empty object wrapper). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's 'active' qualifier implicitly defines the scope, though no parameters exist to document.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all active chains.' The parenthetical '(lightweight summary view)' distinguishes it from read_chain and get_chain_status by describing the view type, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description doesn't say when to call list_chains vs search_chains vs read_chain, despite many chain-reading siblings existing. Only implied by 'active' scoping.

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