get_viber_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the operation is a read ('Get') but adds no further behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The 'full details' claim is vague, though the output schema may fill some gaps.

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 front-loaded, with a single action sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every part is useful and there's no redundancy.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit channel differentiation guidance, but the tool name and sibling context help. Overall, it's nearly complete but could mention that it's specific to Viber.

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 only defines 'name' as a string without description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the expected format ('ACT00123') and source (list_viber_chats), fully clarifying the only parameter.

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 details of a single Viber activity by ID. It includes a concrete example ('ACT00123') and references list_viber_chats as the source for the ID, distinguishing it from sibling chat tools for other channels.

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 tool should be used when a Viber activity ID is available and full details are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as avoiding confusion with get_activity or other channel-specific getters. Guidance is minimal but sufficient for simple cases.

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