workiva_get_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get chain details' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes 'details', any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

While the description is short and technically concise, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about usage, behavior, and return context. The 'Args' block only restates the schema, contributing little beyond what the schema already exposes.

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?

Although an output schema exists, which covers return values, the description lacks context about when to use the tool, how it relates to other chain tools, and what 'details' includes. For a simple one-parameter tool this is still insufficient, as an agent would need to guess the tool's purpose and semantics.

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 adds 'chain_id: The chain UUID' which merely restates the parameter type as string/UUID. It provides no additional semantic value such as format constraints, related objects, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to meaningfully enrich the parameter understanding.

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 states 'Get chain details' with a clear verb+resource, which conveys the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like workiva_list_chains or workiva_chain_run, so it lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use when you have a chain_id'. The description simply repeats the function name.

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