get_device_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: 'Side effects: none' (read-only) and an edge case (a non-rack device returns WRONG_TYPE). It does not describe pagination or the exact return shape, but the safety and failure profile are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, example, and edge cases in clearly labeled fragments. Every sentence adds value and nothing is wasted.

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 moderate read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, error behavior, and a concrete example. The main gap is that the two undocumented parameters are only weakly explained via the example.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. The example get_device_chains(39, 0) only implies argument order/roles (track_index, device_index) without explaining them, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('list its chains, their mixer state and inner devices') and scopes it to 'one rack.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_device_list, noting what that tool 'cannot show,' so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative (get_device_list) and the reason to prefer this tool (chain-level and mixer-volume detail), plus a concrete example. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, but the routing context is clear.

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