get_action_chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context about the tool's purpose but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response size, or performance implications. Thus it adds some value beyond annotations but not substantial behavioral detail.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, and then efficiently defines the core concept. No wasted words; every part of the sentence contributes to understanding.

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 straightforward list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the resource is, making the tool's function obvious. A minor gap is lack of explicit return-value description, but the verb 'List' implies a list of items.

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%, with each parameter (limit, offset, name_filter) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it does not improve upon the baseline set by the high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'action chains', then extends clarity by defining exactly what an action chain is: 'ordered DiagnosticSource/RemediationSource stages that action rules trigger on alerts'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling list tools like get_alerts or get_escalation_chains.

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 strong context by placing the tool within Automated Diagnostics & Remediation and defining the concept, so an agent understands when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the singular sibling get_action_chain implies the distinction.

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