get_action_chain

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only that the response includes stages; it does not disclose not-found behavior, response shape, or any additional side effects, but for a simple read with these annotations that is a modest gap.

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?

A single 10-word sentence with no filler. The verb, target, and key return detail ('stages') are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output that is at least partially described ('including its stages'), the definition is largely complete. It leaves only the explicit relationship to get_action_chains unstated.

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 100% and chain_id is already described as 'Action chain ID', so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond referring to the chain as 'specific'. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and identifies the exact resource ('a specific action chain') plus a differentiating detail ('including its stages'). This clearly separates it from the sibling list operation get_action_chains and other get_*_chain tools.

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 word 'specific' and the required chain_id parameter imply this is the single-item lookup companion to get_action_chains. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over get_action_chains, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion.

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