get_node_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content categories (version, config, peers, machine info), going beyond the annotation hints. It does not mention network-dependent behavior beyond the schema default.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does.

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 no required parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations are sufficient: safe read, open-world hint, and content scope are covered. Additional output format or resolution details are not necessary at this 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional network parameter, including default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema fully carries the semantic weight; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about the current TRON node' and names concrete data categories (version, config, peers, machine info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chain_info (chain-level metadata) and list_nodes (network node listing).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_chain_info or list_nodes. Context is implied by 'current TRON node,' but the description does not state exclusions or reference alternative tools.

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