read_chain

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful output-shaping context: early-phase chains return fewer fields to reduce cognitive load, and full data requires a different access path. It does not explain which fields are omitted or how phases are determined.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful behavioral note. There is no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not detail return values. It adds the key progressive-disclosure caveat, though it could more explicitly distinguish this tool from other chain-reading siblings.

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 description provides no information about the sole parameter, chain_id. Although the schema includes a minimal 'Chain identifier to read' description, the reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (chain state), and the progressive-disclosure qualifier distinguishes it from plain chain reads. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 through 'progressive disclosure' and notes that full data is available via direct YAML read, which hints at when this filtered view is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools such as get_chain_status or list_chains.

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