midnight_network_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. It is adequate but lacks details on auth or latency implications.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a bullet list of returned items and then usage guidelines. It is well-structured and concise, though not extremely tight.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters or handle errors, which are essential for a network status 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the parameters (network, indexer_url, etc.). Users are left to guess their purpose and usage. This is a critical gap for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 it checks health status of Midnight Network services and lists specific components (Indexer, Proof Server, Node RPC, block height, Network ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like midnight_compile_contract or midnight_transfer_tokens, and from the generic get_server_status sibling by being Midnight-specific.

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 explicitly states use cases: 'Verify network connectivity before operations', 'Debug connection issues', 'Check service latency'. It does not provide when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear for a simple health check.

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