List chassis resources

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return object structure (collection_uri, chassis items), the wrapping format ({items, total, truncated}), and the effect of include_details. This goes beyond what annotations provide, especially the truncation hint which complements the openWorldHint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return format and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 list tool, the description covers the core behavior, return shape, pagination/truncation indicator, and includes a usage example. An output schema exists, so detailed field documentation is already available. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully describes both parameters, including the meaning of include_details and endpoint. The description reiterates include_details in prose and gives an example call, adding slight value but not substantially extending the schema's coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Chassis members'), and specifies the optional behavior ('include full details and status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_chassis, which targets a single chassis, and list_systems, which targets a different resource.

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 provides clear context: this tool lists chassis members and can optionally fetch details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous in the context of sibling list/get tools, making the intended usage clear.

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