get_block_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'lightweight, fast' which gives useful context about performance characteristics, but doesn't cover other important aspects like error conditions, rate limits, or what 'block height' specifically means in this context. This provides some value but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise (5 words) with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get current block height') followed by important behavioral context ('lightweight, fast'). Every word earns its place in this efficient description.

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 (0 parameters, has output schema), the description provides adequate context. The output schema will document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from slightly more behavioral context about what 'block height' means in this specific implementation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior rather than repeating what's already clear from the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current block height'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blockchain_info' or 'get_block_stats' that might also provide block-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 includes 'lightweight, fast' which implies this tool is preferred for quick block height queries over more comprehensive alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other block-related tools (e.g., 'get_block_stats' for detailed statistics), leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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