list_chains

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by detailing sources, precedence, and additional diagnostics (invalid chain files, missing packs, pack conflicts, shadowing). It doesn't explicitly state non-mutation, but 'List' strongly implies read-only.

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 dense but every clause carries distinct information: sources, paths, precedence, and diagnostics. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object, then adds structured detail without 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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: what is listed, where chains come from, layering precedence, and what anomalies are reported. No critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully describes this with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter noise.

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 ('List') and a concrete resource ('all available thinking chains'), then expands with built-ins, file-defined layers, and shadowing. The operation is clearly distinct from siblings (run, advance, save, export), which are actions on a chain rather than enumeration.

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 establishes the tool as the inventory/read operation for chains, including diagnostics and shadowing details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names make the boundary inferable.

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