Inspect Nostr relay

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it does not follow redirects and only accepts public wss:// URLs. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies potential edge cases, though it doesn't explain what happens on redirects or invalid URLs.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action (fetch) and immediately state the key constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and the core purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves a gap around the timeout_ms parameter and does not describe what the returned NIP-11 document might contain. Given the tool's narrow scope, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 lists two parameters (relay_url and timeout_ms) with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The description does not explain either parameter, leaving timeout_ms entirely unexplained. The meaning of relay_url is inferable from the tool's purpose, but the timeout behavior is undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 (fetch) and the resource (relay's NIP-11 information document). It also adds specific constraints (doesn't follow redirects, only public wss:// URLs). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like nostr_get_profile or nostr_query_notes, which handle 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (fetching relay metadata) and includes a strict input requirement (public wss://). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools have obviously different purposes, so the usage context is sufficient.

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