get_mining_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It successfully lists the specific data points returned (difficulty, hashrate, block size), but omits other behavioral context such as data freshness, caching behavior, or rate limiting that would help the agent understand operational constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. The colon-separated list format efficiently communicates the return values without extraneous words. Every element 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description adequately covers the essential contract by listing the specific mining metrics retrieved. It could be improved by noting data freshness or caching, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for a simple read-only data retrieval tool.

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 contains zero parameters (100% coverage of empty set), establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist, though it implicitly confirms no filtering parameters are available by exhaustively listing the fixed return values.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('mining info'), and lists specific returned metrics (difficulty, network hashrate, block size). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_difficulty_adjustment' or 'get_blockchain_info' which may overlap in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to prefer this over 'get_difficulty_adjustment' (which also returns difficulty data) or 'get_blockchain_info' (which may contain overlapping network data).

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