get_chain_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic purpose. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any potential errors, leaving the agent without additional context beyond the trivial action.

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 short sentence: 'Get the chain ID for a network.' It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple utility tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks any usage context or differentiation from many similar network-related siblings. The absence of annotations and any behavioral detail leaves some gaps, though the schema compensates for parameter semantics, making it minimally viable.

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 fully describes the sole 'network' parameter, including examples and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and the resource 'chain ID for a network', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_chain_info or get_supported_networks, so it loses a point.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools or any exclusion criteria; the only usage hint (default network) is in the schema, not the description.

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