get_node_info

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 describes the return format ('Dictionary with node information including connection status, network, block height, and version'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is helpful but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 the core purpose ('Check connection and network status') and efficiently follows with return value details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage. The use of a clear 'Returns:' section enhances readability without adding bulk.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a diagnostic tool. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or specific use cases to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary parameter details.

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 specific verbs ('Check connection and network status') and identifies the resource ('node information'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on diagnostic/status checking rather than transaction creation, token operations, or data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'verify_timestamp' might also involve status checking).

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 implies usage context through the phrase 'Check connection and network status,' suggesting this tool should be used for diagnostic or health-check purposes. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed comparative guidance.

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