research.start_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: chains persist across sessions for future recall. However, it omits other key behaviors such as whether the new chain returns an identifier needed by research.add_step, and any auth or lifecycle constraints.

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, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first states what it does, the second states the persistence trait. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what starting a chain yields (an ID/handle needed by research.add_step). It covers intent and persistence but leaves that return-value gap, making it only adequately complete for a creator tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter (title, intent, modelUsed) already carries an example in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Start a new research chain') plus the purpose (track reasoning across multiple steps), which distinguishes it from siblings like research.add_step and research.recall_chain. It is clear but never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 persistence note hints at why one would create a chain (future recall) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point to alternatives such as research.add_step for extending an existing chain. Usage must be inferred from the surrounding toolset.

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