api_algod_get_node_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get current node status' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'node status' actually includes (health metrics, version info, network connectivity, etc.). For an API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 at just three words ('Get current node status'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 complexity of an API tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'node status' returns, how it differs from the 'after_block' variant, what authentication might be needed, or typical use cases. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for proper tool selection and invocation is lacking.

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 description mentions no parameters at all, while the schema documents two optional parameters with 100% coverage (network with enum values and itemsPerPage with default). Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides about 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 'Get current node status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current node status'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'api_algod_get_node_status_after_block', which appears to be a similar status-checking tool with different timing. The description is adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools available (including 'api_algod_get_node_status_after_block' and various other API tools), there's no indication of when this specific node status check is appropriate versus other status or information retrieval tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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