get_chain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the returned fields, which gives insight into output, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or default network selection, leaving some gaps for a complete transparency profile.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids repetition and clearly introduces the optional parameter in the second sentence.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and fully described schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It names all returned fields and explains the epoch option. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the field list, though a more explicit response structure could improve completeness.

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 already fully describes both parameters with high coverage (100%). The description's mention of 'optionally pass an epoch number' reinforces but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. The network parameter's detailed description is already in the schema, so the description adds no extra value here.

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 'Get current Sui network info' and enumerates specific fields (chain ID, epoch, checkpoint height, timestamp, reference gas price), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_object or get_transaction, which target other data types.

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 a clear use case: retrieving current network info, and also explains the optional epoch parameter for querying specific epochs. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the context is sufficient given that no sibling tool offers this functionality.

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