protect_get_chime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds the returned fields but no additional behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose any special behaviors like rate limits or side effects, but none are expected.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a bulleted list of returned fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects in input) and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is nearly complete. It lists the return fields, which is slightly redundant but helpful. It could mention pagination or error handling, but not necessary for a get-by-ID.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Chime ID.' The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. The listed return fields are helpful but pertain to output, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details for a specific chime by ID,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., protect_get_camera) by focusing on 'chime' and lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a chime ID is available, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to call protect_list_chimes first or use other get tools). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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