get_chain_status

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. It mentions the tool checks status of async executions, which implies it's a read operation, but doesn't specify what status information is returned, whether there are rate limits, or error conditions. It provides basic context but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted text and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about what status information is returned, possible status values, or error handling. It's minimally complete but leaves operational questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'chainId returned from call_api with async: true', which provides context about parameter origin but doesn't add semantic details beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('Check the status') and target resource ('async chain execution'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'call_api' (which initiates chains) and 'resume_chain' (which resumes them). It provides a complete purpose statement with no ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use the chainId returned from call_api with async: true'), providing clear prerequisites and context. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'call_api' by indicating it's for checking status after async initiation.

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