get_chassis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns full details including hardware, network adapters, and links, which gives some sense of the response content. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, permission requirements, potential errors, or other side effects.

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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence lists included content without fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the content of the response. It could mention response format or error behavior, but given the simplicity and good schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter with examples and cross-reference to list_chassis. The description only adds 'by its ID,' which reinforces the schema but provides no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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: retrieving full chassis details by ID, and distinguishes it from list_chassis by specifying a single chassis retrieval. The mention of included content (hardware details, network adapters, links) adds specificity.

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 the need for an existing chassis ID, and the schema parameter description mentions using list_chassis to find IDs, but the tool description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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