get_chime

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

No annotations are present, so the description itself carries the burden of conveying the operation's nature. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'single Protect chime' clarifies the scope, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, error behavior, or permission requirements. This is adequate but minimal.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by two scannable parameter lines. There is no filler, and every sentence 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 low-complexity two-parameter GET tool with an output schema in place, the description is complete. It documents the non-obvious host format, required parameter, and how to obtain the chime_id, leaving no invocation-critical gaps.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: it defines host's accepted formats (console name, ID, or composite 'MAC:numericId' format) and marks chime_id as REQUIRED with clear provenance instructions from list_chimes. This goes well beyond the bare string schemas and gives the agent exactly what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a single Protect chime by ID.' The qualifier 'single ... by ID' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_chimes, while the resource name separates it from update_chime. An agent can understand what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear retrieval workflow by requiring chime_id and directing the agent to obtain it from list_chimes's id field. It does not explicitly contrast with update_chime or say when not to use it, but the single-by-ID framing plus the list_chimes linkage provides sufficient context.

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