get_escalation_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as what details are returned or any dependencies. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal value.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately minimal for a simple get operation.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with rich annotations and a single well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the expectation for a 'get details' tool is standard. The completeness is adequate for the complexity.

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 the parameter chain_id is described as 'Escalation chain ID' in the schema. The tool description does not add any further meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'escalation chain' with 'specific' implying a single instance by ID, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_escalation_chains (plural). It is clear but does not explicitly name the alternative or the distinction.

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 phrase 'specific escalation chain' implies using this tool for a single chain when the ID is known, contrasting with listing all chains via get_escalation_chains. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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