get-chat

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the response includes chat members, which is non-obvious and valuable given there is no output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: get is the action, single chat is the resource, and including its members clarifies the response scope.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description plus annotations cover the core calling requirements. The main missing item is more explicit guidance about choosing this over list-chats, but the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what the response includes.

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 input schema already documents chatId with a description and minLength, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single chat'), and the scope ('including its members'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-chats, which returns multiple chats, and get-chat-message, which targets a message within a chat.

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 phrase 'single chat' implies this tool should be used when the agent already has a chatId and needs one chat, rather than listing chats. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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