chat_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: polling until status is active/registered and the significance of registeredAt over createdAt for certificate creation, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. No redundant information. Essential details are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values (status, participants, registeredAt) and explains the polling workflow. It is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool, though it could mention if other statuses exist or error handling.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description explains that caseFileId must be personal and chatId comes from chat_create, adding meaning to the parameters. It does not detail parameter formats but provides contextual usage.

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 'Retrieves details of a certified chat,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chat_create and chat_invitation_url by focusing on retrieval of certified chat details.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requires: personal caseFileId and chat_create → chatId.' Also gives a usage pattern: 'After chat_create, poll chat_get until status is active/registered and registeredAt is present.' This guides the agent on when and how to use the tool, though it does not mention 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.