gmb_info_chains_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the error condition (`NOT_FOUND` for non-existent chains) and the HTTP method (`GET`), which are useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. This is meaningful but not overly rich, hence a 4.

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 one sentence plus a concise error note. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary filler.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and error condition. While it doesn't describe the returned chain structure, the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world) and the sibling set (e.g., search vs. get) make the context sufficient. A 4 reflects that it is complete for typical use but not exhaustive.

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%, with all parameters (name, fields, quotaUser, etc.) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('the specified chain'). It also specifies the error behavior (`NOT_FOUND`), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like `gmb_info_chains_search`. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving a single chain by its resource name. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this instead of `search`, but the context is straightforward: use it when you have a specific chain name. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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