icf_get_code_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output as a complete classification chain with an example format. It does not disclose error handling or authorization needs, but adequately explains the read-only behavior and return format.

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 three sentences plus structured Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose, includes an illustrative example, and contains no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what it does, how to use it, and what it returns with an example. It is fully adequate given the complexity and available structured data.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'code'. The description adds meaning by specifying it as an 'ICF code to trace' and providing examples ('b2801', 'd4501'). This compensates for the schema gap, though format constraints could be clearer.

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 the tool shows the full hierarchical path from the ICF root to a specific code. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishes from siblings like icf_get_parent and icf_get_children, and provides an example.

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 says it is 'useful for understanding where a code sits in the overall ICF structure,' providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context and sibling tools imply appropriate usage.

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