Get chain info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that omitting the epoch returns current epoch info, and passing one returns that specific epoch's details. This is useful behavior not covered by annotations. No contradictions found.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and result fields; the second covers the optional parameter. Every word earns its place. This is an excellent model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the return fields and explains the epoch behavior. It doesn't describe the output format or types, but that's less critical here given the simplicity. The description gives an agent enough to call it correctly, though a note about default network behavior could be added (though schema already covers it).

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% – both parameters (epoch and network) are fully described in the schema. The description repeats the epoch behavior but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, the description contributes minimal extra parameter meaning, hitting the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'Get current Sui network info' and enumerates the exact fields returned (chain ID, epoch, checkpoint height, timestamp, reference gas price). This is a specific verb+resource combination that easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object or get_balance, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for network information queries but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. The optional epoch parameter is explained ('Optionally pass an epoch number to get details for a specific epoch'), but there's no guidance on when to prefer this tool over others. The context is clear enough for basic use, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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